Hyderabad: The casual attitude of police officers in passing detention orders under the Preventive Detention Act has been censured by the Telangana High Court in several cases.
The court has said that to simply detain an accused by invoking the Preventive Detention Act would be improper and unjust and that nothing prevents the prosecution from opposing a bail application before the trial court.
“In the event that bail is granted but the prosecution still believes in the likelihood that the accused might repeat the crime, which might threaten the peace and decorum in society, the prosecution can always move an appropriate application seeking cancellation of the bail before the trial court,” the court said
The High Court found fault with the police authorities passing orders under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Land Grabbers Act, (PD Act) 1986, to detain persons mechanically, without good reason.
The High Court criticised the police for humiliating Amrutha Varshini's father, who was the main accused in the murder of his son-in-law Pranay in Miryalguda town, by calling him a habitual offender.
The Miryalguda police registered a case of murder against Maruthi Rao and two others on September 14, 2018 and after 22 days, the police filed two FIRs against him for wrongful confinement and trespass, both bailable offences.
In the case of Marella Srinivas Reddy, the Rachakonda Police Commissioner passed a detention order as Srinivas Reddy, along with his associates, was found alleged to be indulging in forgery, impersonation and cheating innocent landowners by using duplicate official stamps to forge land documents. According to the police, this caused panic and unrest among the innocent general public and landowners living in the Commissionerate limits.
S. Pradeep Kumar, counsel for Srinivas Reddy, said that while quashing the detention orders, a division bench comprising Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice T Amarnath Goud pointed out that the offences which were alleged to have been committed by the detainee could have been dealt with effectively under the ordinary law.
The bench noted, “As seen from the record, the detaining authority has failed to draw the distinction between a 'danger to public order' and a 'violation of law and order', and the detaining authority did not indicate any cogent reason in the detention order for invoking the draconian law, which has to be dealt exclusively in the rarest of the rare cases which might have the potential to put national security and public order at stake.”
The bench further said, “Like any other fundamental right, 'liberty' is not an unruly horse. It can be cribbed, cabined, and confined by a procedure established by law. Article 22 of the Constitution of India permits preventive detention of individuals who are likely to disturb public order, thereby endangering the life and liberties of others.”
