Explore the legal judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of Sama Aruna v State of Telangana, where the detention order was quashed due to references to stale and irrelevant grounds. The court emphasized the necessity for a clear nexus between previous criminal activities and the need for detention. Stay informed about the implications of using outdated information in preventive detention orders.
Facts
- The order of detention was served on the appellant while he was in custody.
- A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed challenging the detention order and the confirmation order by the State government.
- An interlocutory application led to the appellant’s release from preventive detention on conditions set by the court.
- The appellant remained in custody until 27 February 2019 when an interim release order was passed.
- The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the detention order on 13 June 2019.
- The confirmation order was served on the appellant on 2 November 2018.
- The detention order was confirmed after a delay of eight days.
- The detention order was based on the apprehension of bail being granted without following established criteria.
- There were adequate measures and remedies available under ordinary law making preventive detention unnecessary.
- The appellant was involved in multiple criminal cases registered between 2007 and 2016.
- One case against the appellant was compromised in a Lok Adalat, and four cases resulted in acquittals.
- Five cases were transferred to the Special Investigation Team for further investigation, and four cases are still pending trial.
- The appellant was detained under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act but was released on bail due to the investigation not being completed within the specified period.
- A Writ Petition was filed challenging the detention order for not being confirmed in the required timeline.
- The order of detention was based on a specific case in 2018 involving serious charges like murder and conspiracy.
- The order aimed to address the impact of the appellant’s activities on public order and safety in Hyderabad City and Rachakonda Police Commissionerate.
- The order referenced multiple criminal cases against the appellant as a basis for the detention.
- The appellant was implicated in Crime no 178 of 2018 under serious sections of the Indian Penal Code, which was under investigation.
- The confirmation of detention and its revocation were not communicated clearly to the appellant or prison authorities, leading to a lapse in proper procedure.
Arguments
- The petitioner’s argument is based on the grounds mentioned by the Commissioner of the Police in the detention order.
- The petitioner highlights that most of the cases mentioned in the order are old, dating back to 2007 and 2012, with only one case from 2018 still pending investigation.
- Out of the fifteen cases mentioned, the detenu has been acquitted in six and eight are still pending trial, some dating back to 2007 and 2012.
- The petitioner points out that no charge-sheet has been filed in the one case for which the detention order was passed.
- The argument asserts that the order of detention was based solely on one case, which is deemed invalid based on previous court decisions.
- The cited court cases include Sama Aruna v State of Telangana, Lakshman Khatik v State of West Bengal, Rameshwar Shaw v District Magistrate Burdwan, and Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v State of Manipur.
Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF
Analysis
- The relevance of the government’s action based on the Advisory Board report was discussed in the case of Shibapada Mukherjee v State of W B
- Reference was made to the decision in Subramanian v State of T N
- A single offence can be the basis for an order of detention
- The detention order dated 25 October 2018 was approved on 2 November 2018 as per Section 3(3) of the Telangana Offenders Act 1986
- In the case being discussed, the court found that the detention order was based on stale grounds which were not relevant for justifying the detenu’s detention
- The detaining authority referred to criminal cases from 2007-2016 in the order of detention, but claimed they were not relied upon.
- The detaining authority must have a direct nexus between previous criminal antecedents and the need for detention.
- Stale incidents cannot be the basis for an order of detention; they must be relevant and have a live link to the satisfaction of the detaining authority.
- A detention order must be based on relevant material, not stale information.
- The order implied an inconsistency by mentioning the criminal history of the detenu but claiming it was not relied upon for the detention order.
- Simply referring to pending criminal cases without a clear causal connection does not fulfill the requirements of the law.
- Previous criminal activities can be relevant if they indicate a tendency to act in a manner prejudicial to public order.
- The detaining authority should be satisfied that the individual is likely to engage in illegal activities in the future to justify detention.
- The detenu was detained between 25 October 2018 and 27 February 2019.
- The detaining authority’s satisfaction should not be based on irrelevant or invalid grounds.
- Section 12 of the Telangana Offenders Act 1986 allows the government to confirm the order of detention upon the report of the Advisory Board.
- The government can continue the detention of a person for a period not exceeding the maximum period specified in Section 13.
- The government has the discretion to determine the period for which the detention is continued based on their assessment.
- Order of confirmation not mentioned in proceedings before High Court or in first counter affidavit.
- No order of confirmation served on detenu between 28 December 2018 and 27 February 2019.
- Doubt cast on existence of order of confirmation presented before the Court.
- Detention order dated 25 October 2018 to be set aside due to reference to stale and irrelevant grounds by detaining authority.
- Doubt raised on existence of order of confirmation mentioned in detention order due to manner of presentation before the Court.
- Appellant released on bail as investigating authority failed to file charge-sheet within ninety days.
- Charge-sheet not filed yet.
Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration
Decision
- The detaining authority had no reasonable basis to conclude that the appellant would indulge in prejudicial activity if released on bail
- There was no necessity to detain the appellant to prevent him from engaging in prejudicial activity
- The judgment and order of the High Court dated June 13, 2019, were set aside
- The order of detention was quashed as a result of the appeal being allowed
- Pending applications were disposed of
Case Title: KHAJA BILAL AHMED Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001876-001876 / 2019
