CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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