Mere involvement in sexual offence, including one under Section 376D IPC, by itself will not be sufficient to invoke Sec 3 of Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986: Top Court
Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Aravind Kumar [30-03-2024]

Read Order: VADDI LAKSHMI v. STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1723 OF 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, April 1, 2024: The Supreme Court has quashed a detention order passed under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 as it was not decipherable from the order of Detaining Authority how the offence was connected to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The background in which an order of detention under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 had been passed was that there was a complaint under Section 384 of the IPC for extortion.

This was followed by a subsequent complaint for commission of an offence under Sections 394, 376D and 411 read with 34 of the IPC. The detenu was thereafter arrested. However, he was released on 17.08.2023 as the Court directed that he is entitled for default bail.

The Bench was of the opinion that invocation of Section 3 was not justified as mere involvement in a sexual offence, including one under Section 376D, by itself will not be sufficient to invoke Section 3. It was opined that the offence must be integrally connected ‘with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’.

“It is not decipherable from the order of Detaining Authority coupled with the grounds of detention, or from the Confirmation Order dated 09.08.2023, how the offence is connected to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”, the Bench opined.

Apart from the fact that there was no justification for invoking the provisions of the 1986 Act, the Bench was also of the opinion that these are solitary instances. The allegation of rape on 01.05.2023 was only in addition to the earlier allegation of extortion dated 27.04.2023. These are solitary instances of allegations of extortion and rape. There was no material before the Detaining Authority to indicate that the detenu is in the habit of committing the same offence yet again. In the absence of any material of this nature, there is absolutely no justification for the order dated 30.06.2023.

The Bench was of the opinion that the order of detention coupled with its confirmation, were not sustainable. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the judgment of the High Court and quashed the orders of detention.