'Scant Regard For Law': Telangana High Court Upholds Detention Of Man Booked For Robbing Jewellery Store While On Bail

The Telangana High Court has dismissed a father's habeas corpus plea seeking production of his son, who he claimed was preventively detained on the ground that he was a habitual offender and had robbed two jewellery stores within two months including one while he was out on bail. The detention order was passed on November 8, 2024 directing the detenu to be lodged in the Central Prison, Cherapally. He was ordered to be detained from 09.11.2024 for the maximum period. i.e., twelve months from the date of detention. The detention order was approved by another order dated 12.11.2024 and thereafter confirmed by an order vide dated 07.12.2024.The father had argued, that the order was passed mechanically, relying on the basis of two crimes of robbery registered against the detenue by FIRs dated 14th February, 2024 and 20th June, 2024. A division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar noted that the police had apprehended the detenu after the first robbery, and while being out on bail, he had committed the second robbery, this time, with more preparation and planning."The material placed before the Court raises the unavoidable spectre of the detenu being a 'habitual offender' thereby placing him squarely within the category of a 'Goonda' under section 2(g) of the 1986 Act. One of the hallmarks (in a negative sense) of a Goonda is being a habitual offender. The words '…habitually commits…' is peculiar to the definition of a 'Goonda' as opposed to the other classifications of offenders as defined under section 2 of the 1986 Act. The inclination to 'repeatedly' commit or attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of The Indian Penal Code, 1860, would qualify a person, whether acting by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, as a Goonda".The act in question herein is the The Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986. As per the Act "goonda" is defined as person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of IPC. The court held that the detenu's proclivity to be a repeat offender is clear from his confessional panchanamas. It noted that the detenu was arrested on 16.02.2024 for the first offence and remanded to judicial custody whereby the detenu confessed to having committed the offence on 14.02.2024. A Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted on 02.03.2024 where the detenu was identified by the victim (complainant's son) and was subsequently granted bail on 05.03.2024"However, notwithstanding the commission of the first offence and the subsequent arrest and bail, the detenu committed the second offence on 20.06.2024 in the identified shop after meticulous planning for the same along with his accomplices. The detenu carried out the plan with precision including wearing a Burqa to conceal his identity and carrying a knife. The detenu's associate also stole a motorcycle for the purpose of the offence. Hence, the conduct of the detenu reflects a person who is not only a habitual offender but also one who is reckless and un-afraid of the consequences of breaking the law. The detenu's conduct of planning the second offence in total disregard of his past criminal history and prior arrest reveals a person who has the inclination to commit repeat offences," the court emphasized. With respect to the 1986 Act the court observed that it aims to prohibit the commission of certain offences particularly where the offences disrupt the maintenance of public order. The Act seeks to prevent commission of dangerous activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of 'Public Order' and provides for preventive detention of persons in the categories mentioned in the Act and pre-emption of the activities of anti-social elements who may cause harm and danger to the society at large. "Section 2(a) of the 1986 Act defines 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' to cover situations when any person falling under the aforesaid categories is engaged or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as such, which adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order," the court said. It thus said that the explanation to section 2(a) contemplates that 'public order' shall be deemed to have been adversely affected or is likely to be adversely affected inter alia, if any of ...

'Scant Regard For Law': Telangana High Court Upholds Detention Of Man Booked For Robbing Jewellery Store While On Bail

Fareedunnisa Huma

Tags