Wife Not Entitled to Maintenance When Financially Secure and Dishonest: Punjab & Haryana High Court Boycott of Courts Violates Litigants’ Right to Speedy Justice: Rajasthan High Court Slams Lawyers' Strike Over Working Saturdays Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Proviso Cannot Defeat the Main Provision Which Allows Amendment ‘At Any Stage of Proceedings’: Karnataka High Court Knife Used To Enlarge Child’s Vagina Before Rape: Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms Death Sentence In ‘Rarest Of Rare’ Case 47 BNSS | Mere Mention of Offence and Sections Is Not Disclosure of Grounds of Arrest: Allahabad High Court Quashes Arrest for Failure to Furnish Written Grounds Quasi-Judicial Officers Aren’t Criminals For Passing Orders: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Against Executive Officer In Mutation Dispute Sections 215 & 379 BNSS | Police Cannot Register FIR Without Judicial Satisfaction Where Alleged Offence Relates to Court Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Magistrate Empowered To Try Drug Offence Under Section 27(d) Despite It Falling Under Chapter IV: J&K High Court Information Commission Has No Power To Impose Blanket Ban On RTI Applications: Orissa High Court Strikes Down Restriction On Filing Future RTIs Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Shield for Crimes That Threaten Communal Harmony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Bail Plea in Beef Possession Case Drug And Cosmetic Act | Sample Testing Must Be Completed Within 60 Days Under Rule 45 – Delay Vitiates Entire Prosecution: Bombay High Court 156(3) CrPC | Handwriting Expert's Report May Not Be Final – But It’s Sufficient to Initiate Investigation: Delhi High Court 217 CrPC | Alteration of Charges Is Not a Mere Formality: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Dowry Death Conviction Maintenance Is Not a Charity, It's an Implied Right: Chhattisgarh High Court Cancels Gift Deed for Denial of Care to Elderly Donors Minor Inconsistencies Can't Overturn Disability Claims: Bombay High Court imposes ₹2 lakh costs on HDFC Justice Must Not Be a Casualty of Clerical Oversight: AP High Court Last Seen Is Not Last Word – Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Complete and Compelling: Allahabad High Court Nomination Has Sanctity—Succession Certificate Not Mandatory When Valid Nominee Exists: Supreme Court in GPF Dispute

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