Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Telangana High Court Sets Aside Detention of Alleged ‘Sexual Offender’ Under PD Act, Emphasizing Distinction Between ‘Public Order’ and ‘Law and Order’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court, on November 20, 2023, set aside the detention of Md. Nizamoddin @ Viju @ Nijju, who was detained under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, as a ‘Sexual Offender’. The Bench comprising Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman and Hon’ble Smt. Justice K. Sujana delivered the judgment in Writ Petition No. 29522 of 2023.

Md. Nizamoddin was detained following allegations of repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor girl, leading to her pregnancy. The detention order was issued under Section 3(2) of the said Act, terming him a ‘Sexual Offender’. The petitioner challenged the detention order, arguing that it was issued without proper subjective satisfaction and consideration of material, contending that the act was against an individual and pertained only to a ‘law and order’ problem, not affecting ‘public order’.

The Court, In its detailed judgment, emphasized the crucial distinction between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’. Citing the case of Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, the Court observed, “The question to ask is: Does it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed?”

The Court noted that the alleged offense by the detenu occurred within the confines of a house and did not occur in a public place. There was no evidence of the detenu engaging in acts that habitually disturbed public order. The Court held that the detaining authority failed to distinguish between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’, which led to the conclusion that the detention order was not in accordance with the law.

The judgment also granted liberty to the prosecution and the detenu to prove and disprove the allegations, respectively, in a trial court. The trial court was instructed to make decisions based on the evidence without being influenced by the observations of the High Court.

 

 Date of Decision: 20 November 2023

 SHAHIK PARVEEN  VS THE STATE OF TELANGANA 

Latest Legal News