HYDERABAD:As per the provisions prescribed in the Indian Penal Code, a single offence is not sufficient to brand a detenu as ‘goonda’ for purpose of passing a detention order by the police authorities, the Hyderabad High Court has ruled.
Under Section 2(g) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, a ‘goonda’ means a 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 Chapters XVI or XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code.
Citing the above provision, the court has set aside the detention order passed by the city police commissioner and directed the authority concerned to release the detenu.
As for the case, the wife of the detenu approached the High Court urging it to declare the detention order passed by the police commissioner and approved by the Telangana government as illegal. The impugned order was issued detaining the detenu in the Chanchalguda Central Prison on the ground that the detenu was carrying on activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order in the area as he was allegedly involved in two criminal cases. The commissioner furnished grounds of detention order when the detenu was in jail.
The petitioner’s counsel told the court that the police registered two cases for the offence punishable under various sections of IPC and NDPS Act for possessing one kilo of ganja, a narcotic substance. As per the detention order, the police registered the case for the reason that the detenu bore a grudge against a complainant who did scrap business. However, in the impugned order the complainant’s name was not mentioned which indicated that it was wrongly stated in the detention order that detenu bore a grudge against the complainant and committed various offences. Further, the definition of ‘goonda’ was not attracted here, the counsel argued.
On the other hand, the counsel for respondent authorities submitted that the detenu had criminal background and, therefore, a rowdy sheet was opened against him. The detention order was passed to prevent him from committing further crime which is dangerous to the society. Even a single offence of IPC is sufficient to brand him as a ‘goonda’ under Section 2(g) of Act 1 of 1986, he contended.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record, a division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice U Durga Prasad Rao found that there was only one case registered against the detenu under the provisions prescribed in the penal code. It seems that the police commissioner had passed the detention order keeping in view the previous cases based on which the detention order was passed earlier and the same was set aside by this court, which is not permissible under law. As per the provision prescribed under the Act, the detenu cannot be termed a ‘goonda’ keeping as only one case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC. However, the authorities had deliberately, intentionally and with an ulterior motive, after quashing the earlier detention order, passed the fresh detention order to detain the detenu, the bench observed.
While allowing the petition, the judge imposed costs of Rs 25,000 each to be paid by the government and the police commissioner to the petitioner.