Guvvala Srinivas vs State Of Telangana

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Mohd.Islamuddin Ansari and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for learned Additional Advocate General for respondents.

Father of detenu viz., Guvvala Pavan Kumar, instituted writ petition challenging the order of detention vide SB(I) No.322/PD-1/ HYD/2021 dated 18.10.2021. The detenu was ordered to be detained on the ground of his involvement in three crimes i.e., Crime No.90 of 2021 registered under Sections 384, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC; Crime No.206 of 2021 registered under section 324 read with 34 IPC; and Crime No.397 of 2021 registered under section 324 read with 34 IPC, all in Jubilee Hills Police Station. It is alleged that he was involved in many offences including property offences, that he was detained under Act No.1 of 1986 twice dated 17.3.2015 and 30.11.2018. On consideration of opinion of the Advisory Board, by order dated 5.1.2022, Government confirmed the order of detention.

The order of detention is challenged on following grounds. Firstly, the crimes alleged against the detenu are routine law and order crimes which can be prosecuted in the normal procedure by law enforcement agency and do not require resort to extraordinary measure of detaining the detenu. These crimes are stray incidents aimed against particular individual and cannot result in disturbing the public order; secondly, it is illegal to refer to previous criminal record while resorting to preventive detention. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs State of Telangana (2020) 13 SCC 632, it is not permissible to take note of previous crimes, more so, when those crimes are not proximate to the date of detention order; thirdly, father of detenu submitted representation on 5.11.2021 and the said representation was not considered by the State immediately but was rejected after more than two months and that too after a decision to confirm the order of detention was passed and same is illegal. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the representation has to be acted upon forthwith and at any rate before a decision is taken to confirm the order of detention. Learned counsel placed reliance on decision of this Court in W.P.No.37979 of 2018; and lastly, if the law enforcing machinery is of the opinion that by securing bail the detenu is likely to commit similar crimes, they could have sought cancellation of the bail but merely on the ground that bail was granted they cannot resort to preventive detention for routine crimes.

According to learned Government Pleader for Home, it is an eminently fit case to exercise power of detention. He would submit that the detenu is a habitual offender. Several crimes were registered against him and two detention orders were made earlier. Apprehending that after his release from judicial custody, there is every possibility of detenu committing similar crimes creating fear psychosis among general public, which would impact on public order, resort was made to detain him. He would submit that the three crimes registered against the detenu indicate the criminal bent of mind, frequently involving in crimes causing disturbance to the public order.

He would submit that as held by this Court in W.P.No.102 of 2021 the detention order can be passed even when detenu is involved in solitary crime. He would submit that as held by this Court preventive detention is different from punitive detention and can be resorted to against habitual offenders to prevent them from committing similar offences in future which are detrimental to the public interest, disturbing the even tempo of life and causing damage to the public health. He would further submit that as held by this Court in W.P.No.1826 of 2021, it is not necessary for the law enforcing machinery to apply for cancellation of the bail to resort to preventive detention after bail was granted.

He would further submit that it is not prescribed by law that a representation has to be considered forthwith and has to be considered even before the confirmation order was issued. While considering the issue of detention, grievance ventilated in the representation was also looked into and after order of detention was passed, decision to detain the detenu was communicated. He would submit that there is no statutory mandate to support reasons for the decision in response to a representation when confirmation order is passed on the same day wherein reasons were recorded by the Detaining Authority.

Having regard to the view we are taking, no opinion is expressed on the submissions made by both sides on various aspects, except the issue of resorting to prevention detention on involvement in three crimes.

The three crimes registered against detenu are as under:

i) In Crime No.90 of 2021 it was alleged that the complainant is a painting contractor; he took cement and steel from E.Kumar but could not pay the amount; E.Kumar was pressurizing the complainant to pay the amount; On 7.2.2021 while he was going on a motor bike, detenu and his associates including E.Kumar way-laid the complainant, beat him and extorted an amount of Rs.25,000/- from him. Complaint was lodged on 8.2.2021 narrating the above incident.

ii) In Crime No.20 of 2021 it was alleged that on 4.4.2021 at about 03.30 hours, the detenu visited SSV Guest House along with his associates and asked for a room; the complainant who was working in the guest house informed detenu that no room was available. The detenu got annoyed and went away. Complainant alleged that detenu developed grudge against the complainant, came to guest house on 9.4.2021 at about 00.30 hours abused the complainant in filthy language, beat him on his right jaw and stomach with ‘kadiyam’ causing injury to his right jaw and also tore the shirt of complainant.

iii) In Crime No.397 of 2021 it is alleged that the complainant accidentally hit a person in a pub, due to which that person got annoyed and abused him in filthy language even though complainant was seeking apology; disturbed by this development when complainant and his friends were leaving the pub, in parking area that person along with his associates which include the detenu way-laid the complainant and his friends, threatened the complainant with dire consequences and attacked with knuckle duster causing bleeding injuries to his lips and when two of his friends sought to rescue complainant, detenu beat them also.

As can be seen from the narration of the complaints as noticed by the detaining authority, in two crimes the actual grievance is against the specific individuals and those individuals seem to have taken the assistance of detenu to cause injuries to the complainants. In the second crime, it is alleged by the complainant that there was intimidation and causing injury on the ground that on previous occasion complainant therein refused to provide a room. These three incidents are specific incidents occurred in the peculiar facts in each case and cannot per se lead to an assumption of detenu being branded as habitual offender involving in crimes regularly leading to creating fear psychosis in the general public about his motives and apprehension that detenu would resort to commit such crimes randomly, resulting in disturbance to the public order.

All the three crimes reported against detenu cannot be classified as very grave to impact public at large. These three crimes can be prosecuted in the normal course of enforcement of law and order and do not warrant extreme measure of preventive detention of detenu.

For the aforesaid reasons, the orders of detention vide SB(I)No.322/PD-1/HYD/2021 dated 18.10.2021 is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside.

Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to set the detenue, namely, Guvvala Pavan Kumar @ Billa Pavan S/o.Guvvala Srinivas, aged about 29 years, at liberty forthwith, if he is no longer required in any other crime. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.