Aziz Hassan Kotadia v. THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN I: JMAR

Order

1f'er ao n' ble J u sti ce Moushumi Bl Latt echary a)

1. The petitiorler seeks a writ ol l-labeas corp' 1' or scttins the detenu at libcrly and for declaring the detention o"r t r irlrie Order No:04/SB/PD-C.DLLICYB/2024 dated 08.11.2024 1 asst:d bv the respondent No.2 and the approval order uide G O.I-]'. 'lo.l I> lO daied 1,2.\1.2024 passed by the respondcnt No.1 as illegal I rd tr set asidc the said two ordcrs.

2. The petitiorrer claims to be thc lather of the d( l: rrt. According to the petitioner, the impugned detcntion ordcr IrrL i;t:cn passed mechanically only on the basis of trvo crimes of Rolr x:t-r' rcgistered against the dctenu by FIRs dated 14.O2.2O24 and 2(1. )().2024 whrch cannot be made the basis of a preventive detention or I )r.

3. The brief facts leading to thc impugned orders i r -- as fr;llou's 3 MB,J& GPK,J W.P.No.9893 of 2O2S (r) On 14.02.2024, Crime No.65 of 2024 was lodged against the detenu under section 3g4 read with section 34 of The Indian penal Code, 1g60 (,IpCJ at Chaderghat Police Station. The cletenu was arrested on 76.02.2024 for the said crime under thc charge of Robbery. The detenu rvas Lhereafter relcased on bail on 08.04.2024. (ir) A second crime was rcgis tered against the detenu uide Crime No.604 of 2024 on 20.06.2024 under sections 398 and 307 of thc IpC at Medchal police Station for which the detenu was arrested on 22.06.2024. On 04. lO.2O24 although thc derenu was granted mandatory bail under section 167 (2) of The Codc of Criminat procedurc, 1973 (,Cr.p.C.) due to non-hling of the Chargesheet, the detenu remained in judicial remand for non furnishing of sureties. (iii) The impugned detentlon order was passed on 08.11.2024 whereby the detenu was directed to be detained and lodged in the Central prison, Cherlapally, Medchal-Malkajgiri Districr. The impugned detention order was approved by an order 4 MB,J& GPK,J tl ., .No.9893 of 2025 dated 12.ll.2024 in G.O.Rt.No.151O and thc -eafter confirmed b5' an order uide G.O.Rt.No.16'l I daled

07.12.2024

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the ptli ioncr submits that the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Habeas C ; -pus has been filed to declare the impugned detention order as well a s thc approval order as illegal and contrary to the detenu's rights qu a ran t,eed under thc Constitution of India. Counsel submtts that a \ i rit of Habeas Corpus is maintainable when the petitioner es[.rbi lhesi that the detention is unlau,ful. Counsel further submits thal he acls of Lhe detenu forming tl-re basis of his detention do not qualiI thc: clefinitron of any act 'prejudicial to maintenance of public onl 'r'as given in scction 2(a) of The Tclangana Prevention of Dangerr,' rs Act.ivitics of Boot-Lcggers, Dacoils, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, ir rmoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed O f'fenrl r 's, I nsecticidc Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration ( ) l'endcrs, Fakc Document Offcnders, Scheduled Commodities Of r nders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offend: s, trxplosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crimr Offenders and White Collar or F inancial Offenders Act, 1986 ('1986 ;r ,tJ.

5. Counsel urges that the offences for which tt e dctenu u'as arrested affect the maintenance of 'law and order' as rpposed to the 5 MB,JAI GPK,J w,P.No.9893 oJ Z02S marntenance of 'public order,as expiained in section 2(a) of the 1986 Act. Senior Counsel submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have illegally invoked the powcrs accorded under the 19g6 Act instead of taking steps to proceed wilh a petition for cancelation of bail_ Counsel argues that preventive detcntion is an exception to ordinary criminal law and affects the fundamental right of a citrzen under Article 2 I of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned Special Government pleader appearing for thc respondent No.2 relies on Lhe conlessional sLatemcnl of the detenu in Crime No.65 of 2O24(the first crime) r,r,here the detenu categorically admitted the commission of the offence under section 394 read u,ith 34 IPC. Counsel relies on the Medico Legal Case Record dated 14.O2.2024 to place the stab rnjuries suffercd by thc victim u,ho was present at the scene of offence. Counsel also places the Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory Report dated O I .O4.2O24 wiLh regard to the examination of the Material Objects which records the recovery of a knife pursuant to the additional confessional statement of the detenu. Counsel places emphasis on the fact that the detenu committed a second offence within two months of being released on bail and the fact that the detenu is a ,Goonda, as defined in section 2(g) of the 1986 Act. counsel further submits that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authorit5r (the responclent No.2) should 6 MB,J& GPK,J W. '.No.9a93 oJ 2O25 not be inlerfered with in the present Writ Petition sinc I the Grounds of Detcntion contain good reasons for placing tbe cletcnu ut-rder de[ention. Habeas Corpus and Preventive Deler{lqn: 7 . A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an extraordinarl -emedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which eml o\ ''ers a High Court to direct a person or an authority to produ c e the 'corpus' (body) in the Court and explain the basis of the detc Ltioll.

8. The object of the Writ is to preserve the liber .' of the citizen in a case of illegal detention'. Hence, a Writ of abeas Corpus u,i1l not be maintainabie where the detention is larvful i. e. , in accordance u'ith the decision rendered by a Court c f lau, or bv an authoritl, in accordance with law: Home Secretctr r (Pnson) u.. H. Nilofer Nishal . Courts have given varying opinions rn the right of a person to maintain a Writ of Habeas Corprr rin cases ol detention.

9. In State of Maharashtra u. Tasneem Riztuant ' iiddiquee2, the Supreme Court took the view that placing a pi) son in Police custody pursuant to a remand order pass:l by ' (2020) l.+ SCC 161 2 (2O r8) 9 SCC 745 7 MB,J& GPK,J W.P.No.9A93 of 2O2S jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the offence under tnvestrgation would not be a case of illegal rletention and hence a Writ of Habeas Corpus could not be issued. The Court is required to scrutinise the legality of the order of detention and unless the detention suffers from the vice of rack of jurisdiction or absolute illegality, a Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be granted: Manubhai Ratilal Patel u. State of Gujarat.s

10. Hence, the fundamental requirement for the Court is to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is under detention without any authority of law. 11 The iaw on the maintainability of a Writ of Habeas Corpus with regard to 'preventive detention' occupies a narrolrrer conspectus.

12. There is no bar upon the detaining authorit5r to detain in order to disable the offender from repeating such offences where the authority is satisfied that the offender has a tendency to continue violating the law. The High court under Articre 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over preventive detention orders and cannot exarnine the material on record to r 20r3 (1) SCC 314 8 MB,J& GPK,J w.. '.No.9893 o.f 2O25 question the subjective satisfaction of the detaining tuthority with respect to the detention as long as the formaliti':; enjoined by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India have beetr t ompiied r'r'ith: Hernlata Kantilal Shah u. State of Maharashtra & arst-

13. A detention order could be valid even agalnt t a person 1n custodS, u,here the Authority is aware of the factum f custody and ' has reason to belleve that there exists reasonable pc ssibility of the detenr-i being set at large from custody and that trr : detenu after being releascd u'ould again indulge in prejud icia I activities. If these elements are highlighted in the grounds of detention, reflecting the subjective satisfaction of the Detai I .ng Authority, then the order of detention cannot be interferec with on the premise that the d etenu was already in confine;r ent when the detention order rvas made'. Vijag Rajendra Patil u. o >mntis sioner of Police..

14. ln Vijag Kumar u. rJnion of India6, the Suprenr : Court opined that where a detenu is already in detention or in jai for an offence at the time of i-ris preventive detention, the detentic I order will not be vitiated, if from the grounds of detention it a l rean's that the 4 1981-.rl) SCC 647 5 (2021) scc onl-ine Bom 872 6 1988 (2) SCC 57 9 *.,.*..{!;!"1t'it;", detaining authority \\ras aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention and there existed compelling reasons justifying such detention despite this fact. 'r'he mere lact that a detenu has been discharged in a criminai case relating to an incident by a Magistrate w r not make the order of d etention incompetent, baseless or mala fide: Sahib Singh Dugal u. Llnion of IndiaT; Mohd. Salim Khan u. Shi C.C. Bosel.

15. An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation thereof or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention: Haradhon Saha u. The State of West Bengalo. It is always open to the detaining authority to pass an order of detention if the grounds of detention are germane to the object for which a detention order can legally be made. The fact that the particular act of the detenu, which provides the reason for the making of the detention order, constitutes arr offence under The Indial Penal Code, 1860, would not prevent the detaining authority from passing the order for detention instead of 71965 SCC Online SC 298 a t972 2 SCC 607 (1975) 3 SCC t98 10 MB,J& GPK,J w P.No.9893 of 2O25 proceeding against him in a Court of law: Srz.; i alias Salish Choutdhary u. State af West Benqalla

16. Preventive detention is often described as a jurisdiction of suspicron". Thc primarv object of preventive det" rtion is not to punish a person for having done something but t I intercept the person before the commission of an offence. It is rt, ,t a penalty for past activilies o1 an individual but is intenctc t to pre-empt him/her frorn indulging in future activities which z I e prohibited in law,: Stale of Mahctrctsl'Ltra u. Bhaurao Punjabt t o Gatuandell . Grant of bail t'ould not have a bearing on the imp -l 3ned detention order: Vijag Kurnar's case (supra). The Telangana Prevention of Danserous Activities of Boot-Leggers . Dacoits, Druq-Offenders, Goondas, l rrmoral Trafhc Offenders. Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offqnt! rs Insecticide Offenders Fertiliser Offenders Food Adulteration ( )ffenders Fake Document Offenders Scheduled Commodities Of enders Forest Offenders, Gamins Offenders, Sexual Offenrl rrs, Explosive Sr.rbstances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber O ime Offenders and White Coilar or Financial Offenders Act 1986 the 1986 Act): i r0(L 972) 3 SCC 826 r r 2008 (3) SCC 613 l1 MB,J& GPK,J w.P.No.9a93 oJ 2O2S

17. The 1986 Act has been pressed into servrce in the present matter and concerns the captioned categories of pcrsons. The Act aims to prohibit the commission of certain offences particularh where the offences disrupt the maintenance of public orcler. The Act seeks to prevent commission of dangerous activities rvhich are prejudicial to the maintenance of ,public Order,. The 19g6 Act (as amended in 2018) provides. for preventive detention of persons in the categories mcntioned in the Act ald pre_emptron of the activities of anti-social elements ,a,ho may cause harm and cianger to the socie[z at large.

18. Section 2(a) of the 19g6 Act defines ,acting in anA manner prejudicial to the maintenance of pubric ordel to cover srtuations u,hen 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 explanation to section 2(a) of the 1986 Act contemplates that ,public order, shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this Clause directly or indirectly are causing \or are calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling T2 MB,J& GPK,J A P.No.9893 oJ 2025 of insecurity among the general public or any sec'i rn t.hereof or a grave rvide spread ri:rnger to life or public health The Impusned Dctcrrtion Ordcr dated Oa.ll.2024

19. The impugnecl preventive detention order t ategorises the detenu as a 'Goonda' under tl-re Act as justihcatlon br passing. the impugned order. l'he offence deais with section tl g) of the 1986 Act u,hich defines 'Ciooncla' to include habitual ; Tenders. The specihc dehnition t hr:reof is given below: '"goonda" rneans a person, rvho cither by himself r as a membcr of or Ir:ader of a gang, habitually commits, or i I empts to commit or alrt:1s the cornmission of offences punishaL t under Chaptcr X\/l or Chaprcr XVII or Chaptcr XXII of the lnciirL: Penal Code:'

20. Tho impugnccl ordcr records the following facts (0 The dctcr-ru is a'Goondzr'as del'ined under s,r 't.ion 2(g) of the i9|(r Act as the detenu has er:; aged in unlaq,ful act.ivities b1, committing Propert-\ Cffences along u,ith his associates, namely, robL:ries in jeu.ellen, shops and attacking thc shop r;u r ers with knives, stabbing them brazenly, cansinq bleeding ir-tjuries, under the limits of Cyberabr, Police Commissiorrt:rate and surrounding area in r filanner 13 MB,J& GPK,J W.P,No.9893 of 202s prejudicial to the maintenance of public order thereby causing disturbancc to the peace and tranquility ir-r the area. Thesc brazen acts o[ attacking owners of jewellery shops and stabbing them, causing bleeding injuries, done in an organized manner in broad daylight have created panic among the pedestrians, commuters and business community peoplc undcr thc limits of Cyberabad Police Commissionerate. (ii) The detenu is a dangerous property offender who u,as involved in two oflences within a span of fivc months i.e., from 14.02.2024 to 20.06.2024 in the timits of Cyberabad and Hydcrabad police Commissionerates. (iii) The impugned order records the facts of the detenu,s arrest on 16.02.2024, remand in judicial custody and subsequent grant of bail on O5.03.2024. (iv) The detenu was rcleased from jail on Og.04.2024 but soon after, the detenu targeted a jewellery shop at Mcdchal and committed a robbery on 20.06.2024. The detenu was thereafter arrested on 22.06.2024 and was granted mandatory bail on O4.1O.2O24. The Medchal Police filed an application for cancellation of 14 MB,J& GPK,J V . '-No.9a93 of 2025 the bail granted lo lhe detenu and the same ls perxl in g Thc (irounds of Detent ion 2l . The impr-rgned order rccords thc parliculal5 , f tlie offences rvhich have been commitled as grounds for detenti,r r. The details arc summarized below. (i) Crime No.65 of 2024 ltnder section 394 r :ad u ith sectior-t 34 of Thc Indian Penal Code, 186t 'lPO') on the file ol the Chadcrghat PS, HyderiL r:rd was registr:red against the detenu pursuant to l-r offencc committed Il, the dctenu on 14.O2.2O'2'+ rt L3:20 hours at Kisu'ah .Jcu'ellers, Akbcrbergh, .lalakpet. Thc offence was rcported on the salne d a y, lty the Complarnant u'ho rut-ts the said jervelleq' ;.rop. u,ho statecl that on 14 .O2.2O24 at about 1 1 : 1 i- r rurs, the Complainant's son had opened his shop. 1 'ter some time lhree unknown pcrsons entered his si cp where one of thenr attacked his son with a knilc causing bleeding injuries and the]' also committr r theft of eight trays ernd three boxes of gold ornam<:rr s. 15 *..,",.{i;{Ir"if;! (i4 The statement of the Complainant was recorded in detail by the Chaderghat p.S., including the details of the stoien gold ornaments. Thereafter, the police visited the scene of offence with..two mediators, conducted investigation and then recordecl a detailed statement of the victim (son of the complainant). The Police also verified the CCTV footage at the scene of offence rvhich revealed that one person covering his face entered the shop followed by two others carrying a plastic cover and a knife. They attacked the shopkeeper with the knife, took Lhe trays containing gold and silver ornaments and fle d the shop by threatening him. (iir) The detenu was apprehended by thc Chaderghat Police on 16.02.2024 based on credible information, nhereby the detenu revealed his name and admitted to having committed the offence. The Chaderghat Police recorded this confessional statement in the presence of two mediators. (i") The detenu confessed that he along with his two associates had identified Kisu,ah Jewellery Shop 16 MB,J& GPK,J w,P,No.9a93 oJ 2O25 situaled at Akbcrbagh and after conduct ng a recce Luro times, proceeded to commiL LLre rlfence on 13 .O2.2024 . The detenu hou,cvcr clicl not get a chance to commit thcft as there were thr('€ persons in rhe shop. The detenu again rvent to il e shop on 14 .O2.2024 with thc others on thr: ' different molorcycles. After one of thc detenu'; associates entered the shop as. a customer, lhe dct r ue and his othcr associate Shoukath, entered [he sh: ;, attackccl rhe shopkeeper on his left ear nnd ncci a nd forced him to sit on the ground. The dcte - l arrd his associates then took the gold and silve- ornaments and fled the shop. The delcnu kcpt the stolen propcrty at his house u'hich n as later s : zed by the Chadcrghat Policc. Thc detcnu's associillc s u,ho rvere subsequently apprehended by the I clice also confessed to having comrnitted this offenr r along u.ith the detenu. The confessionaI statern'] rts of the detenu's associates were also recordecl. 'he detenu and his associates were arrested on 1(. )2.2024 at 14:10 hours and duly rcmanded to judiciiL custody. \ l7 MB,J& GPK,J W.P.No.9a93 oJ 202S (") The detenu and his associates were then taken into Police custody for a period of three days i.e., from 24.02.2024 Lo 26.02.2024 as per the orders dated 23.O2.2024 passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide Dis No.23O I 2024, whereby an additional confessional statement rvas recorded on 25.O2.2024. (vi) In his additional confessional statement, the detenu offence on confessed that after commifting [he 14.02.2024 thc detcnu transferred the stolen gold ornaments from the trays into a cover and hid them in his house for disposing of them later. The empty trays and the knife used in the commission of the offence wcre put in a carry bag and thrown near Fox Sagar Lane road ieading to Uma Maheshwar Colony which were later seized by the police in the presence of two mediators. The knife had brown stains on the (vii) On 02 .O3.2024 , the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad had conducted a Test Identification parade of the detenu and his associates 18 MB,J& GPI<,J v/.'-No.9893 of 2025 u,herein thc victim (Complainant's son) :orrectiy iclentified thcm. (viii) The dctenu lilcd a bail petition before thc Ic':: -t-re<l VIII Adclitional Chiel Metropolitan MagisLr: tc uide Cri.M.P.No- 155 of 2024 aL Hyderabad He was granted bail on 05.O3.2024 and accordingl' released on 08.04.2024. The Assistant Public Pro'sc: -rtor filcd an application for cancellation of bail on li LO -2024 which is pending. (ix) The sccond olfcnce occurred on 20.06.20)- l at about 13:40 hours at Jagadamtra Jewellc - Shop, Raghzrvendra Nagar Colony, Me dchal i rrd \\ras rcporled on the same day a[ about 14:0t] 'rours b1, rhe Complainant who runs the said shol; rvith his patcrnal uncle. According to the Compl r nant, on

20.06.2024 at about 13:4O hours 1en the Complarnant and his paternai uncle were ilL ihe shop, tu.'o persons came on a bike one of whom r,' Ls clad in a burqa u,ith a black cover in his hand vhile the oLher q'ore a helmet. The unknown offendt' s entered the shop nhere the person clad in burqa, t rok out a 19 *.o.*".#;!*"rW! knife from the black cover and threatened the Complainant's uncle in Hindi to put all the jewellery into the cover. Thc offenders then stabbed the Complainant's uncle in hrs left chest. Upon hearing his uncle's screams, the Complainant came out and beat that unknown person with a chair causing the said offender to drop the silver ornaments collected by him in front of the shop before both the offenders escaped on their black pulsar bike. (") The Medchal police registered a criminal case and During the course of started investigation. investigation, the police collected a blood-stained black cover and blood samples along with CCTV footage (ri) The CCTV footage shorved the dete nu and his associate entering the shop ,ferociously, and brazenly attacking the victim with a knife. (xii) The Police recorded a detailcd statement of the victim and other eye witnesses to this incident all of who expressed a feeling of insecurit5r and panic after 20 MB,J& GPK,J $t. '.No.9893 of 2025 witnessing such a horrific incident in their rusiness loca litl in broad davtigh t. (xiii) Wlrile li'rc inr.cstigation rvas in progress, Llt : de lenu and his associate wcrc apprehended ncar; Iamperlly Railway Station r,,,hi1c u,aiting on their motc r rike and contemplating the commission of anothc- offence. Upon interrogalion at thc Medchal Police Stz [:ion, the deLenu revealed his 'name and the nanr . of his associate (Shaik Sohail) and admrttecl to the commission of this offence . The co : issional stalement of the detenu was recorded in tht lresence ol trv<; rncdi.ertors whcreby [he detenu cot L :ssed to having piai-rncd thc crime in the said si op :rlter concluctir-rg rcccc in different areas of I I rlerabad targeLing .1eu,ellery shops. Their plan Lncluded stealing a Pulsar bike, purchasing a knife : rd a full veil (burqa) to conceal their identity while c r n mitting the offence. In the morning of 20.06..1 )'24 , the dclcntr clad in burqa and carrying a knile r a black cover along with his associate (Sohail), prc c :eded to Jagadamba Jewellery shop at Medchal on l rc stolen bike and at the opportune moment, entere( ,he shop 21 MB,J& GPK,J w.P.No.9a93 oJ 2O2S whereafter the detenu stabbed a person causlng bleeding injuries. Meanwhile the detenu,s associate collected the ornaments from thc shop. (xiv) Whilc fleeing from the shop, the detenu threw the ornaments near the shop and the knife on the road at Medchal and reached the place where anoLher associate was waiting. Thereafter, the detenu removed his burqa and hand gloves and placecl them in a cover which he left on the stolen bike, parking it nearby. The detenu then left with his associate in an (xv) The detenu and his associate $,cre arrested on 22.06.2024 at 13:00 hours and duly remanded to judicial custody. The detenu and his associate were then Laken into Police custody as per orders of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge_cum_IX Addtional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal ftom 22.06.2024 b 2a.O6.2O24 whereby their additional confessional statements were recorded in the presence of two mediators, leading to the seizure of the knife used in the offence which contained dark brown stains. The 22 MB,J& GPK,J w.' .No.9a93 of 2025 bloocl samples were then sent for examinatic -r to the Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratotr FSL). (xvi) The detcnu was granted mandatorl' rail on 04 .lO.'2024 by the IX Aclditional Me : opolitan Magistrate at Medchal vide Crl.M.P.No.842 tf 2024. Thc Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a pt t tion lor canccllalion of the detenu's bail which is pending orders. Invoi!,cmcnL of tlre Dctcnu in thc Comrnission ol lhe () cnces

22. The grouncls of deter-rtion link the detenu to thL :rimes by u'ay of specihc evidence i'r,hich includes: (i) Confes sion- cum- seizure panchanamas, (iil Sl.atements of the complainants and e1't 'itnesses, (iii) Scene of offence panchanamas, (iv) CCTV footages of the incidents and (i,) Medico-Legal Case Records of the victims/ shop keepers

23. None of the evidentiary material has been ci;pr-rted by the detenu. The on11, point raised is that the Test Identihcation Parade (TIP') was conducted only with referenr: to the first MB,J& GPK,J w.P.No.9a93 of 2O2S offence ald not with regard to the second offence. materiai placed on behall of the State respondents evidence relied upon in the ,Grounds of Detention,. The detailed include the

24. The Confessional panchanama of the detenu dated 16.02.2024 outlines his background. The petitioner (detenu,s father) returned to India after having worked in Nerv york, United States of America (USA). The detenu was born and brought up n Mumbai. After completing his graduation from the Delhi National Schooi in 201 1, he secured employment in Africa. Thereafter, he stat,ed in China from 2Ol2 for two years arld returned to India in 2014. The detenu states that he then went to USA in 2015 for employment and stayed there for seven years before returning to India in 2022. The detenu got married in Hyclerabad and had a prematurell' born son in August, 2023 u,herebv he incurred huge losses for treatment

25. The detenu had been working as a Rapido driver for six months prior to the recording of the confessional panchanarna. The statement of the detenu reflects that the detenu ,hatched a plan' and assigned roles to his accomplices, Mr. Shoukat and Waris for the purpose of committing theft in Kiswah Jewellery shop at Akbarbagh. The detenu confesses that the detenu 24 MB,J& GPK,J rv P.No.9A93 oJ 2025 instructecl Mr. Waris to pretend to be a customer a- l Mr. Shoukat to rrde a bike to the shop and suitably assist in < tmmitting the crime. On 13.O2.202.1, the detenu also kept a kr itr u.ith l.rim to threaten the shopkceper. On that date, the det -. ru stood at a distance and observed the shop for half an hor r for the right moment to commit the offence but did not get a r I ance as there were threc persons in the shop. As per their 'plr r', the detenu returned on l1 .O2 .2024 u,hilc carrving a knife i I d parked his bike at Abirls and Shoul<at's bike near Malakpr.t Station. The detenu therealter ri ent to the shop rvith Shoukat r n Waris' bike u,hilc Waris took a ltzrssenger auto. They enterecl tl : shop, where the detenu attacked t ite shopkeeper u.ith a knife. I' rey took trays of gold rings ancl other jeu'ellery from the shop : rd fled. The confessional staternent records the crime in de,r ri1 and more crucially, in pursua:rce of a 'dctailed plan' u'hich u: s executed by the detenu and his tu'o accomplices.

26. We have also r-onsidered the other material p r ced before us including the Medico-Legal Case Records dated 1 1 02.2024 and

20.06.2024 showir.rg the assault and injury sr. i'ered by the victim/ s in both thc incidents. MB,J& GPK,J W.P.No.9893 oJ 2O2S

27. The Remand Case Diary dated, 16.02.2024 records the items recovered from the detenu pursuant to his confessional panchanama dated 16.O2.2024 inclucling the jewellery stolen from the shop. The Seizure Report dated 25.O2.2024 by the Chaderghat Police Station filed pursuant to the detenu,s additionai confessional statement d,ated 25.02.2O24 which includes a knife with a black handle u,ith brown stains on the blade is also part of the records. The FSL Report dated O 1.04. 2024 also mentions detection of human blood on item Nos. l, 2, 4 and 5 i.e., 2 galze cloths, a white T-shirt and a knife respectively. The second confession-cum- seizure panchanama of the cletenu dated 22.06.2024 is also on record. The detenu,s confession details the second crime on 22.06.2024 committed at Jagadamba Jevr.ellers by the detenu and his associates. The Seizure Report dated 27.06.2024 filed herein includes a knife with dark brown stains. The FSL Report daLed 26.07 .2024 also mentions detection of human blood on item Nos. L, 2, 3, S and 6 i.e., 3 gauze cioths, a black plastic cover and a knife respectively. Conclusions from the Material relied on by the Res ondents.

28. The material placed before the court raises the unavoidable \ spqctre of the detenu being a ,habitual offender, thereby placrng / 26 MB,J& GPK,J s . '.No.9a93 oJ 2025 him squarely u-ithin the category of a 'Goonda' un'l 'r s(rction 2(g) of the 1986 Act. Onc of the hallmarks (in a negil i 'e sense) of a Goonda is being a habitual offencler. The n'or-t I '... habttuallg comrnits...'is peculial to the definition of a'Goondz' as <>pposcd to the other classifications of offenclers as defined utr' l :r section 2 of the 1986 Act. The inclination to 'repeatedly' ct>mm i or attempt to commit or ab(lt the commission o[ offences prl ]l Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXtl of 'lhe Indian Pen :' shable ur-rder C<>de, 186O, ',rvould qualifY a person, $'hethcr acting by himse[1' I as a member ofor leader of a gang, as a Goonda.

29. The detenu's proclivitv to be a repeat offencl : his confessional panchanamas. 'l'he detcnu rt't -is clear from ; arreste<1 on

16.02.2024 for the flrst offence and rcmandccl to. t rlicial custody whereby the dt:tenu confessed to havir-rg comntittt''rl the offence on

14.02.2024. A Test tdentification l)arade (TIP) wa, r:onducted on A2.O3.2O24 u'here the detenu rvas identified ,-t, the victim (complainant's son). The detenu rvas then g,r Lr-rted bail on

05.o3.2024.

30. However, notu'ithstanding the commissior of the first offence and the subsequent arrest and bail, the d<'t rnu committed the second offence on 20.06.2024 in the iden t I cd shop after \ 27 MB,J& GPI<,J W.P.No.9a93 oJ 2O2S meticulous planning for the same along with his accomplices. The detenu carried out the pian with precision including wearing a Burqa to conceal his identity and carrying a knife. The detenu,s associate also stoie 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 rau,. 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.

31. The explanation to section 2(a) of the 19g6 Act contemplates that 'pubiic order' shall be deemecl to have been adversely affected or is likely to be adversely affected inter alia, if aly of the activities of any of the persons classihed as offenders in this provision, directly or indirectly cause or are calculated to cause any harm, dalger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave widespread danger to iife or pubiic health. In the present case, the detenu,s reckress conduct of attacking shopkeepers in busy areas in broad daylight for committing robbery of gold and silver ornaments raises a high '2a MB,J& GPK,J tv P.No.9a93 of 2025 likelihood of panic being caused amongst the frneral public including jeu,ellerv shop o\\ ners.

32. Both the jervcllery shops, namely Kisri 1ir J eu,cllers, Akberbagh at Malakpet and Jagadamba Jervellers - Mcdchal, are located in thorough iares and the robberies \\rcre c( , rmitted in full view of passers-by present in the tivo locations. 'l'i , very lact that the detenu contemplated such crimes, especiitllv r I e sr:cond one, in utter disregarcl of the safet,v and securitv of slr rp keepers and those present in thc localitr, sho\\'s that tht: <1,, , nu 1'ras scan I regard for the lau' or the consequences thereof. rr: a<-'livities of the detenu are sufhcient to give rise to a feelin ri of alarm and insecurity amongst the general public hamltering aL'e rnovement in the localties rvhich \vould squarely rencler : rcsc actiVities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as lcfincd under section 2(a) of the 1986 Act. The Petitioner's Cases

33. The Supreme Court in AnTeeno Bequrt, u. State of Telongand z camc to a specific fir-rding that he subjective sati\faction of the detaining authority can bo i rr erfered with \ 12 (2023) 9 SCC 587 29 MB,.'& GPK,J w.P.No.9a93 oJ 2O25 where the grounds of such satisfaction are irrational or vague. Further, the Supreme Court quashed the detention order therein by holding that the detention order failed to appreciate the difference betr,veen the maintenance of ,1au. and order, and maintenance of 'public order'.

34. In Shaik No-z,neen u. State of Telanganar3, the Supreme Court set aside the detention order by holding that a lau, and order situation which can be dealt with under the ordinary larv of the land would not require invocation of the extraordinary pou.ers accorded under the law of preventive Detention. It was observed that'law ald order" involves disorders of lesser gravity than those affecting "Public Order". In Khaja Bitat Ahmed u. State of Telangonat a, the Supreme court noted that the order of detention may refer to the previous criminal antecedents only if there rs a direct nexus with the immediate need to detain art individual. It was observed that the order of detention therein had been passed on stale grounds which could not have been considered as relevant for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. \ 13 (2023) 9 scc 633 14(2020) 13 SCC 632 30 MB,J& GPK,J s/. '.No.9493 oJ 2025 35. Ram Manoltar Lohia u. The State of Biha' and Othersls contains the classic expositior-r of the difference be.. 'een 'Lau- and Order' and 'Public Order' u,ith respect to the D': ense of India Rules, 1962. The Supreme Court opined that 1r aintenance of pubfic order' means prevention of disorder of a gra", r nat.ure while 'maintenance of law and order' means preventior of disorder of comparatively lesser gravity and of 1ocal significanc: onlv.

36. Sakina u. The State of Telanganat', I assed b-r, a Co ordinate Bench of this Court, contains a spcc;i i hnding that the detention order therein ll,as liable to be quashr I as it lacked substantial justihcation and was arbitrary in natur: Th e Division Bench was also of the view that the alleged offence s in the matter would not disrupt public order and there was ro compeiling evidence to suggest that the detenu posed an irnn l rent threat to society. The other decision cited of a Co ordi: lte Bench in Jahangir Bee u. The State of TelanganalT containel the vieu, that the reasons given by the 'Detaining Authority' rvhi e passing the impugned order of preventive detention were not . ustifiable and the order of detention was hence liable to be set asi i 15 AIR 196 SUPREME COURT 740 t6 w. P. No.)392s ot2024 I7 w. P.No.34727 ct 2024 -l 31 MB,J& GPK,J W,P.No.9a93 oJ 2O2S

37. The cases cited by Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would hence show that the Court came to the considered view that the detentions in these cases were illegal as they did not come q,ithin the ambit of maintenance of ,pubtic Order'. The Court also found the reasons given by the detaining authority to be arbitrary. Horvever, each case must be decided on its particular facts. The facts in the present case are completely different from those in the.cases rvhich have been stated above. We are hence inclined fo hold that the cases cited by the learned Special Government pleader are more aligned to the facts of the present case. Conclusion

38. We therefore do not find anv reason to differ from the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authorir-y as expressed in the Grounds of Detention dated OB. ll.2O24 or the approval order dated 12. 17.2024, or the conhrmation order passed by the Advisory Board on preventive Detention Cases dated 07.12.2024, whereby the detenu was ordered to be detained from Og.Il.2O24 for the maximum period under section 13 of the 19g6 Act, i.e., twelve months from the date of detention. , \r / MB,J& GPK,J u'. '.No.9493 of 2025

39. In essence, the jewellery shops are located ir: r public place u.hich may be frequented by the general public. Tt r repeated ar-rd well planned acts of the detenu are sufficierLt to raise the presumption of a feeling of threat and alarm amonl st the general public. Besides the offence of daylight robberv, the [etenu car,rsed bodily harm to the victims which amounts to a gra\'( offence.

40. Hence, the detenu qualifies as a 'Goonda' un i :r section 2(g) of the 1986 Act. The impugned order dated 08 1.2024 alon.g w,ith the approval order dated 12.71 .2024 arc f : rnd to be in accordance ',r,ith the statutory requirements of thc Act. We also find that the Detaining Authority has conside - :d lhe entire material placed before it to come to a subjective s:,isfaction that the detenu's case would fall within the pur-vierv o1 ; rction 3 of the Act which deals with the power to make an or,l:r directing a classihed offender to be detained for the purpose ol rreventing the offender from acting in a manner prejudicial to the r raintenarce of public order

41. Moreover, the fact that the Test Identihcati: r Parade was satisfactorily carried out by following due proced-re, obliterates the issue of ascertaining the identity of the detenr in committing .).f MEt,.r& cPr<,.r W.P.No.989d of ZO2S the said offences: Nenauath Bulji Vs State of Telanganatr. The conclusion summarised in Nenauath Bujji in paragraph 43 of the Judgment, particularly points (v), (vi) and (ix) thereof necessitates a categorical subjective satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority which is to be reflected clearly in tire order of detention and must include an examination of pertinent material to determine that the detenu has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order rvith thcre being a likelihood of him continuing to indulge in such activities unless prevented by an order of detention. These conditions have been complied with in the present case.

42. The argument that the detenu is unfamiliar with the English language is belied by the confessional statement of the rletenu which clearly discloses that the detenu is fluent and we, aware of the English language. However, the most important factor is that the detenu reflects the mental propensity to commit one offence after another which satisfies the essential criterion for being classified as a 'habitual offender, under section 2[g) of the 1986 Act. 13 2024 scc online sc aE7 34 MB,J& GPK,J W ) .No.9893 oJ 2O25

43. It is rvell settled that the Court wili not int{r fere with the subjcctive satisfaction of the Detaining Authorit' unless the findings are vitiated by arbitrariness or the absenc'e ;f cvidence or aly form of perceived or actual bias. In the prt: ent case, the evidence is clearl1, detailed in the grounds of detentir n.

44. We accordingly do not find any scope for int.e t ierence in the impugned orders of detention, i.e., orders datec 08.I7 .2024 ' 1 2. 1 1 . 2021 anrl conseqltential orders.

45. W.P.No.9B93 of 2025, along with all conneclcr applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order i1 i to costs. //TRUE COPY// SDi-A. JAYASREE ASS,I }TANT REGISTRAR !r/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 BSR LS One CC to Ms IvI.VANAJAKSHI' Advocate [OPUC] 11 LR CoPies The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law lustice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. Library, High Court The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Buildings, HYderabad' rr,vn ccs to ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL' High i"ri"s* at Hyderabad [OUTI Two CD CoPies ( ourt for the State of \qr HIGH COURT DATED:1 511012025 ORDER WP.No.9893 of 2025 ..\ 1; i-; :Jfr \.s 1\ l' ,// DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS t4 ,3(d \%-_. . {t*r'