‘Solitary offence not enough to classify as habitual offender’

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court held that a solitary offence, however grave or brutal, could not classify a person as a habitual offender under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara quashed six preventive detention orders passed against persons accused in a murder case. The bench held that a single criminal case could not satisfy the statutory requirement of habituality for classifying a person as a ‘Goonda’ under the Act.

The bench allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by the family members of detenus, challenging their detention orders.  The detenus were arrested in connection with a criminal case registered at Malakpet Police Station in relation to the murder of Kethavath Chandu Rathod. The petitioners contended that the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, passed detention orders invoking the provisions of Act and classifying the accused as ‘Goondas’.

Senior Counsel V. Raghunath appearing for the petitioners contended that the detention orders relied exclusively on a single criminal case and did not satisfy the requirement of habitual commission of offences under the Act. He further argued that the preventive detention orders were passed after the detenus secured conditional bail and that the State ought to have pursued the pending applications seeking cancellation of bail under the ordinary criminal law.

Opposing the petitions, Special Government Pleader Swaroop Oorilla contended that the murder was committed in broad daylight at GHMC Park, Shalivahana Nagar, Malakpet, and in a manner that instilled fear and panic in the society. The bench observed that the Act required the accused to be habitual offenders, and that a single criminal case could not establish such a pattern of offending.  The bench held that the gravity, brutality or premeditated nature of the crime could not, by itself, bring the accused within the definition of a ‘Goonda’ unless the statutory requirement of habituality was first established. Observing that a special statute involving infringement of personal liberty required strict construction, the bench set aside all six detention orders and directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Chanchalguda, to release the detenus forthwith, if they were not required in connection with any other case.