SHAIK HABEEB Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was filed for a writ of Habeas Corpus, by the father of the detenu, who is a retired Head Constable from the State Special Police establishment, stating that his son Shaik Raoof was detained under orders in SB (1) No. 8/DGA/87/91 dt. 27-9-1991 which was issued under section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act'. The 1st respondent, State Government issued G.O. Rt. No. 4696 General Administration (General-A) Department, dt. 8-10-1991 approving the detention by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, by order dt. 27-9-1991. By a further G.O. Rt. No. 5131 General Administration (Genl. A) Department, dt. 11-11-1991, the 1st respondent directed continuance of the detention for a period of 12 months from 28-9-91. Petitioner challenges the above three orders.

(2.) The 2nd respondent passed the order dt. 27-8-91, on being satisfied from the materials placed before him that the detenu was a Goonda, within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act and that it was necessary to detain him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the grounds of detention, which accompanied the order, it was stated that the detenu was a dangerous Goonda and he had become a threat to the maintenance of public order in Hyderabad city. It was also stated that on account of violent criminal activities a rowdy sheet was opened for him on 16-3-1991 and that continued to be maintained and that the detenu along with his associates have been indulging in Goonda activities in the limits of Kalapather Police Station of Hyderabad City. It was also mentioned that the activities indulged in by the detenu on 9-12-1990 resulted registration of Crime Nos. 87 to 92 of 1990 due to the attacks on the houses of Sri Gopala Raju, Sri Govindarajulu, Sri. K. Govindan Sri Rajaiah, Smt. Neelamma and Sri E. Rama Reddy, Advocate in Tabtan. Crime No. 87/90 was registered for offences under sections 147, 148, 452, 427 and 153-A, I.P.C. Crime No. 88 to 90 of 1991 related to offences under sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 435, IPC. Crime No. 91/90 was for offences under sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 307 and 153-A, IPC. The last instance of attack on the house of Sri E. Ram Reddy, Advocate was that the detenu and his gang has stolen gold jewels and other costly items and set fire to his car AEY 9898 to communal frenzy. In all the instances, it was stated that the detenu indulged in communal frenzy and along with his gang assaulted and damaged property. The detenu was arrested by Kalapather Police in the above crimes and was sent for judicial custody. It was stated that full facts narrating the details of grounds were not given in public interest. It was on the basis of the above grounds that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order of detention dt. 28-9-1991.

(3.) Petitioner submits that his son is not a Goonda within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. It is also his submission that his son is not a habitual goonda, he has not committed or attempted to commit any crime under Chapters XVI, XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted further that his involvement in Crime Nos. 87 to 92 of 1990 of Kalapather Police Station between 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 Hours on 9-12-1990 would not justify the 2nd respondent treating him as a Goonda and clamp the order of detention on him. Those instances were incidents of a single day during curfew which was imposed on 7-12-1990. Yet another submission is that even though the offences are committed on 9-12-1990, the crimes were registered against unidentified number of persons and the involvement of the detenu had not been definitely ascertained. Yet another submission is that during the interval between 9-12-1990 when the offences were committed and 28-9-91 when the order was passed, there was a reasonable period of interval and the detenu had not indulged in any criminal or dangerous activities affecting public order.