# Nenavath Bujji Etc v. The State of Telangana and Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 239
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-03-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 1738-1739 of 2024
- **Bench:** Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nenavath-bujji-etc-v-the-state-of-telangana-and-ors-37703
- **Pages:** 47

## Headnote

High Court, if erred in affirming the order of preventive detention
passed by the Detaining Authority against the detenu and his
associates for committing offence of gold chain snatching creating
lot of fear and panic in the minds of the women folk.
Headnotes
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers,
Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders
Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide
Offenders, Fertiliser 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 - s. 3(2) - Preventive detention under - Proposed detenu
along with his associates habitually committing robberies,
property theft offences and gold chain snatchings from women
folk by using criminal force on public roads in broad day light
continuously - Registeration of four FIRs against the detenue
for the said offence, however, the Detaining Authority took into
consideration only two FIRs registered within its territorial
jurisdiction - Order of preventive detention passed - Division
Bench of the High Court upheld the order - Correctness:
Held: Habituality of committing offence cannot, in isolation, be
taken as a basis of any detention order; rather it has to be tested
on the matrices of "public order" - It is only those cases where
such habituality has created disturbance of public order that they
could qualify as a ground to order detention - Inability on the part
of the state's police machinery to tackle the law and order situation
1182
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive
detention - On facts, mere registration of the two FIRs for the
alleged offences of robbery etc could not have been made the
basis to invoke the provisions of the Act 1986 for the purpose of
preventively detaining the detenue on the assumption that he is a
"GOONDA" as defined u/s. 2(g) - What has been alleged against
the detenu could be said to have raised the problems relating to
law and order but it is difficult to say that they impinged on public
order - Nothing to indicate that any such statements of people, more
particularly the women of the concerned locality, were recorded
so as to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the nefarious
activities of the detenu created an atmosphere of panic and fear
in the minds of the people of the concerned locality - Furthermore,
in none of the FIRs the name of the detenu has been disclosed as
one of the accused persons - Detaining Authority could be said
to have taken into consideration something extraneous - Thus,
the order of detention passed against the detenu and co-detenu
quashed and set aside - Impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court set aside. [Paras 31, 33, 36, 40, 64, 65]
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers,
Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders
Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide
Offenders, Fertiliser 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 - ss. 9-12 - Role and duty of the Advisory Board:
Held: Advisory Board(s) under preventive detention legislations,
are one of the primary constitutional safeguards available to the
detenu against an order of detention - Advisory Board performs the
most vital duty of independently reviewing the detention order, after
considering all the materials placed before it, or any other material
which it deems necessary - When reviewing the detention order,
the Advisory Board must form an opinion as to the sufficiency of
the cause for warranting detention, then only an order of det

## Text

_Characters 0–39,897 of 103,766. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39897 for what follows._

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1181 : 2024 INSC 239
Nenavath Bujji Etc.
v.
The State of Telangana and Ors.
(Criminal Appeal Nos 1738-39 of 2024)
21 March 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J.B Pardiwala* and
Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court, if erred in affirming the order of preventive detention
passed by the Detaining Authority against the detenu and his
associates for committing offence of gold chain snatching creating
lot of fear and panic in the minds of the women folk.
Headnotes
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers,
Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders
Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide
Offenders, Fertiliser 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 - s. 3(2) - Preventive detention under - Proposed detenu
along with his associates habitually committing robberies,
property theft offences and gold chain snatchings from women
folk by using criminal force on public roads in broad day light
continuously - Registeration of four FIRs against the detenue
for the said offence, however, the Detaining Authority took into
consideration only two FIRs registered within its territorial
jurisdiction - Order of preventive detention passed - Division
Bench of the High Court upheld the order - Correctness:
Held: Habituality of committing offence cannot, in isolation, be
taken as a basis of any detention order; rather it has to be tested
on the matrices of "public order" - It is only those cases where
such habituality has created disturbance of public order that they
could qualify as a ground to order detention - Inability on the part
of the state's police machinery to tackle the law and order situation
1182
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of preventive
detention - On facts, mere registration of the two FIRs for the
alleged offences of robbery etc could not have been made the
basis to invoke the provisions of the Act 1986 for the purpose of
preventively detaining the detenue on the assumption that he is a
"GOONDA" as defined u/s. 2(g) - What has been alleged against
the detenu could be said to have raised the problems relating to
law and order but it is difficult to say that they impinged on public
order - Nothing to indicate that any such statements of people, more
particularly the women of the concerned locality, were recorded
so as to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the nefarious
activities of the detenu created an atmosphere of panic and fear
in the minds of the people of the concerned locality - Furthermore,
in none of the FIRs the name of the detenu has been disclosed as
one of the accused persons - Detaining Authority could be said
to have taken into consideration something extraneous - Thus,
the order of detention passed against the detenu and co-detenu
quashed and set aside - Impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court set aside. [Paras 31, 33, 36, 40, 64, 65]
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers,
Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders
Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide
Offenders, Fertiliser 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 - ss. 9-12 - Role and duty of the Advisory Board:
Held: Advisory Board(s) under preventive detention legislations,
are one of the primary constitutional safeguards available to the
detenu against an order of detention - Advisory Board performs the
most vital duty of independently reviewing the detention order, after
considering all the materials placed before it, or any other material
which it deems necessary - When reviewing the detention order,
the Advisory Board must form an opinion as to the sufficiency of
the cause for warranting detention, then only an order of detention
passed under the Act, 1986 can be confirmed - Framers of the
Constitution have specifically put in place safeguards within Art.
22 through the creation of an Advisory Board, to ensure that any
order of preventive detention is only confirmed upon the evaluation
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
1183
Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
and scrutiny of an independent authority which determines and
finds that such an order for detention is necessary - Preventive
detention being a draconian measure, any order of detention as
a result of a capricious or routine exercise of powers must be
avoided - Advisory Board must consider whether the detention is
necessary not just in the eyes of the detaining authority but also in
the eyes of law - Requirement of having persons who have been or
are qualified to be High Court judges in the Advisory Board is not
an empty formality, it is there to ensure that, an order of detention
is put to robust scrutiny and examined as it would have been by
any ordinary court of law - Thus, it is imperative that whenever
an order of detention is placed before an Advisory Board, it duly
considers each and every aspect, not just those confined to the
satisfaction of the detaining authority but the overall legality as per
the law that has been laid down by this Court - Entire purpose
behind creation of an Advisory Board is to ensure that no person
is mechanically or illegally sent to preventive detention. [Paras
50, 55-63]
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers,
Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders
Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide
Offenders, Fertiliser 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 -
ss - 9 and 10 - Constitution and composition of an Advisory
Board - Reference to Advisory Board and its functions and
procedure - Stated. [Paras 51-54]
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers,
Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders
Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide
Offenders, Fertiliser 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 - Scope and object - Explained. [Paras 19-21, 23]
Preventive detention - Concept of - Preventive detention visa-vis criminal conviction:
1184
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: Concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a
person is not to punish him for something he has done but to
prevent him from doing it - Basis of detention is the satisfaction
of the executive about the likelihood of the detenu acting in a
manner, similar to his past acts, which is likely to affect adversely
the maintenance of public order and, thereby prevent him, by an
order of detention, from doing the same - Criminal conviction on the
other hand is for an act already done which can only be possible
by a trial and legal evidence - There is no parallel between the
prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order - One is a
punitive action and the other is a preventive act - In one case a
person is punished on proof of his guilt, and the standard is proof
beyond the reasonable doubt, whereas in the other a person is
detained with a view to prevent him from doing such act(s) as may
be specified in the Act authorizing preventive detention - Power of
preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention
- Power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised
in reasonable anticipation. [Paras 24, 25]
Preventive detention - Order of preventive detention - Legality
of - Principles to be adhered to :
Held: Detaining Authority should take into consideration only
relevant and vital material to arrive at the requisite subjective
satisfaction - Detention order requires subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority which, ordinarily, cannot be questioned by the
court for insufficiency of material - Nonetheless, if the detaining
authority does not consider relevant circumstances or considers
wholly unnecessary, immaterial and irrelevant circumstances, then
such subjective satisfaction would be vitiated - While making a
detention order, the authority should arrive at a proper satisfaction
which should be reflected clearly, and in categorical terms, in
the order of detention - Satisfaction cannot be inferred by mere
statement in the order that "it was necessary to prevent the detenu
from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order" - Rather the detaining authority will have to justify the
detention order from the material that existed before him and the
process of considering the said material should be reflected in
the order of detention while expressing its satisfaction - Inability
on the part of the state's police machinery to tackle the law and
order situation should not be an excuse to invoke the jurisdiction of
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
1185
Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
preventive detention - To arrive at a proper satisfaction warranting
an order of preventive detention, the detaining authority must
examine the material adduced against the prospective detenu to
satisfy itself and, if the said satisfaction is arrived at, it must further
consider whether it is likely that the said person would act in a
manner prejudicial to the public order in near future unless he is
prevented from doing so by passing an order of detention. [Para 43]
Words and phrases - Expression 'law and order' and 'public
order' - Distinction between:
Held: Expression 'law and order' is wider in scope inasmuch as
contravention of law always affects order - 'Public order' has a
narrower ambit, and could be affected by only such contravention,
which affects the community or the public at large - Distinction
between the areas of 'law and order' and 'public order' is one of
degree and extent of the reach, of the act in question on society
not merely in the nature or quality of the act - It is the potentiality
of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which
makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order - If
a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals
directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it could
raise problem of law and order only - Acts similar in nature, but
committed in different contexts and circumstances, might cause
different reactions - In one case it might affect specific individuals
only, and thus, touches the problem of law and order only, while
in another it might affect public order - Act by itself, thus, is not
determinant of its own gravity - In its quality it may not differ from
other similar acts, but in its potentiality, that is, in its impact on
society, it may be very different. [Para 32]
Judicial deprecation - Order of preventive detention passed
by the State of Telangana under the provisions of the Act 1986
in a routine and mechanical manner:
Held: State of Telangana to pass orders of preventive detention
taking the judgments pronounced by this Court seriously, and
see to it that the orders of preventive detention are not passed in
a routine manner without any application of mind. [Para 47, 48]
Writs - Writ of 'Habeas Corpus' - Meaning and purpose -
Issuance of writ of 'Habeas Corpus', when - Stated. [Paras
29-30]
1186
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal [1969]
2 SCR 635 : (1969) 1 SCC 10; Haradhan Saha v.
The State of W.B. [1975] 1 SCR 778 : (1974) Cri LJ
1479; Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda [2004]
2 SCR 422 : (2004) 3 SCC 75; Ameena Begum v.
State of Telangana and Others [2023] 11 SCR 958 :
(2023) 9 SCC 587; Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of
Telangana and Others [2019] 18 SCR 1174 : (2020)
13 SCC 632; Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others [1954] 1 SCR 418 : (1953) 2
SCC 61; Shaik Nazeen v. State of Telangana and
Others (2023) 9 SCC 633; Mallada K Sri Ram v.
State of Telangana [2022] 3 SCR 5 (2023) : 13 SCC
537 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Halsbury's Laws of England; Constitutional and
Administrative Law by Hood Phillips & Jackson - referred
to.
List of Acts
Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers,
Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders
Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide
Offenders, Fertiliser 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;
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Preventive detention; Order of preventive detention; Detaining
Authority; Territorial jurisdiction; Habituality of committing offence;
Public order; Law and order; Goonda; Advisory Board; Capricious
or routine exercise of powers; Criminal conviction; Punitive
detention; Precautionary power; Subjective satisfaction; Routine
and mechanical manner; Writ; Writ of 'Habeas Corpus'.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
1187
Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
1738-1739 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2023 of the High Court for
the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in WP Nos. 26941 and 26886
of 2023
Appearances for Parties
P. Mohith Rao, Ms. J. Akshitha, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Devina Sehgal, Kumar Vaibhav, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J. B. Pardiwala, J.
For the convenience of the exposition, this judgement is divided in
the following parts:
INDEX*
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX............................................................
3
B.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT............ 15
C.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS.... 17
D.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.. 20
E.
ANALYSIS......................................................................... 21
i.
Extraneous Considerations that weighed with the
Detaining Authority thereby vitiating the Order
of Preventive Detention.......................................... 34
ii.
Summary of the Findings....................................... 42
iii.
The Saga Continues................................................. 45
iv.
Role of the Advisory Board..................................... 47
F.
CONCLUSION.................................................................... 54
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1188
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
1.
Leave granted in both the captioned appeals.
2.
Since, the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same;
both the appellants are co-detenus and the challenge is also to the
self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court those were
taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this
common judgment and order.
3.
For the sake of convenience, the Criminal Appeal No. ....... of 2024
@ SLP (Cri) No. 3390 of 2024 is treated as the lead matter.
4.
This appeal is at the instance of a detenu, preventively detained under
Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Boot-Leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide
Offenders, Fertiliser 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 (for short, the "Act 1986") and is
directed against the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench
of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special
Original Jurisdiction) dated 16.09.2023 in Writ Petition No. 26941
of 2023 filed by the appellant herein by which the Division Bench
rejected the writ petition and thereby declined to interfere with the
order of preventive detention passed by the Commissioner of Police
Rachakonda Commissionerate, State of Telangana dated 12.09.2023
in exercise of his powers under Section 3(2) of the Act 1986.
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5.
The order of detention dated 12.09.2023 passed by the respondent
No. 2 herein reads thus:
"ORDER OF DETENTION
ORDER OF DETENTION UNDER SUB SECTION (2)
OF SECTION 3 OF THE "TELANGANA PREVENTION
OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOTLEGGERS,
DACOITS, DRUG-OFFENDERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL
TRAFFIC OFFENDERS, LAND-GRABBERS, SPURIOUS
SEED OFFENDERS, INSECTICIDE OFFENDERS,
FERTILISER OFFENDERS, FOOD ADULTERATION
OFFENDERS, FAKE DOCUMENT OFFENDERS,
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
1189
Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
SCHEDULED COMMODITIES OFFENDERS, FOREST
OFFENDERS, GAMING OFFENDERS, SEXUAL
OFFENDERS, EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES OFFENDERS,
ARMS OFFENDERS, CYBER CRIME OFFENDERS AND
WHITE COLLAR OR FINANCIAL OFFENDERS ACT, 1
OF 1986 (AMENDMENT ACT NO. 13 OF 2018)".
WHEREAS, information has been placed before me that the
offender "Nenavath Ravi S/o. Nenavath Jagan, Age: 23 years,
Occ: Coolie, R/o. Indiranagar Colony, Chandrayanagutta,
Hyderabad, N/o. Padamati Thanda village, Neredugumma
Mandal, Nalongda Dist" is a "Goonda" as defined in clause
(g) of Section 2 of the "Telangana prevention of dangerous
activities of bootleggers, 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, 1 of 1986 (Amendment Act No. 13 of 2018)"
and that he has been habitually engaging himself in unlawful
acts and indulging in committing of Robberies, Property
theft offences and Gold Chain Snatchings including sacred
Mangalsutras from women folk by using criminal force on
Public roads in broad day light continuously, repeatedly
in one Police Station limits of Madgul PS, Rachakonda
Commissionerate & Other PSs of Nalgonda District,
thereby creating large scale fear and panic among the
General public especially women and thus his activities
are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and
affected society adversely.
In the recent past, during the year 2023, in quick
succession, the proposed detenu along with his associates
was involved in (04) offences under penal sections covered
by Chapter-XVII of Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide Cr.Nos
1) 129/2023 U/s 379 IPC of PS Chinthapally, 2) 39/2023
U/s 394 IPC of Madgul P.S. 3) 106/2023 U/s 356, 379
IPC of Chinthapally P.S. and 4) 107/2023 U/s 392 IPC of
Madgul P.S. of Rachakonda Commissionerate.
1190
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Among the above offences, (02) offences vide Cr. Nos.
1) 129/2023 and 2) 106/2023 were reported to be out of
this Commissionerate limits and as above (02) offences
committed by the proposed detenu are referred to as
criminal history of the proposed detenu and not relied upon.
The remaining (02) offences pertaining to this
Commissionerate vide Cr Nos: 1) 39/2023, 2) 107/2023
of Madgul P.S. are considered as grounds for his detention.
The offender/proposed detenu committed all the above
Property theft offences/gold chain snatching offences
continuously, repeatedly in quick succession and fall within
proximity period and committed in one police station limits
i.e. Madgul PS.
The offender/proposed detenu along with his associates
has been committing offences continuously, and repeatedly
in order to earn easy money to lead lavish life, which are
punishable under chapter XVII of Indian Panel Code. He
is also committing illegal acts (thefts) involving breach of
peace and public tranquility. The continuous presence of
the offender in the area is detrimental to the maintenance
of Public Order, apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility
and social harmony in the society.
WHEREAS, I, D.S. Chauhan, IPS, Commissioner of Police,
Rachakonda, am satisfied from the material placed before
me that the offender Nenavath Ravi, is a Goonda as defined
in clause (g) of Section 2 of the "Telengana prevention,
detention Act, 1 of 1986 (Amendment Act No. 13 of 2018)"
As per the clause (g) of section 2 of the "Telangana
prevention, detention Act, 1 of 1986 (Amendment Act No.
13 of 2018)" a "Goonda" means "a person, who either
by himself or a member of or leader of gang, habitually
commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission
of offences, which are punishable under Chapter XVI or
Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code".
All the offences committed by the offender punishable
under penal sections of Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860". As such, criminal activities of the offender
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
1191
Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
fall within the ambit of sec. 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 to
term him as a "Goonda" from Madgul PS of Rachakonda
Commissionerate.
WHEREAS, I D.S. Chauhan, I.P.S., Commissioner of
Police, Rachakonda, am aware that the Police Madgul
arrested the offender/proposed detenu Nenavath Ravi on
12-18-2023 at 1230 hours in Cr.No. 107/2023 of PS Madgul
and produced before the Hon'ble JFCM at Amangal for
judicial remand and lodged in Central Prison Cherlapally.
In remaining ground case, he was produced before the
Court by executing PT warrant on 24.08.02023 and lodged
in the jail.
In pursuance of his confession, Police seized stolen booty
i.e. 1) Honda Shine Motor Cycle Br No: TS 05 EZ 6413
pertaining to Cr No. 129/2023 of PS Chintapally from the
house of his relative in Manneguda village at his instance
in the presence of mediators.
Further, the investigating Officer seized 1) One Auto
bearing No: TS 12 UA 7860, 2) One Splendor Plus
bike bearing No.: TS 05 FK 9086 which were used for
commission of offences have also been seized from the
possession of his associates at his instance. In addition,
Gold jewellery in all cases totaling 11.7 tolas was also
seized from the possession of his associate Munavath
Ramesh (A-1) at the instance of this proposed detenu
and other associates.
WHEREAS, I am aware that the offender/proposed detenu
field 1st bail petition in Cr No: 107/2023 of PS Madgul
before the Hon'ble JFCM at Amangal on 17-08-2023 vide
Crl MP No: 285/2023. Police filed counter and prosecution
opposed not to grant bail to him. Accordingly, the bail
petition was dismissed on 24-08-2023.
The proposed detenue again filed fresh bail petition in
two ground cases vide Cr Nos: 1) 39/2023 of PS Madgul,
2) 107/2023 of PS Madgul before the Hon'ble JFCM at
Amangal. Police filed counters opposing to grant bail. Even
though, both the bail petitions were allowed by granting
conditional bail to the proposed detenu on 05-09-2023 vide
1192
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Crl MP Nos: 1) 337/2023, 2) 307/2023. Consequently, he
was released in two ground cases vide release order Dis
Nos: 1) 1741/2023, 2) 1742/2023 respectively. He was
also granted bail in all other remaining history cases and
consequently released from jail after furnishing sureties.
The conditions imposed by the Court in two ground cases
are i) The offender/proposed detenu shall not tamper the
witnesses/victim during the course of further investigation,
ii) he is directed to appear before the Court as and when
directed without fail, iii) He is directed not to leave the
State without permission of the Court.
I have perused all the above conditions of the bail and
however, those conditions do not affect of passing the
order of detention on this proposed detenu.
On account of his antecedents, bail orders granted therein
and consequently released from jail, the way he was
indulging in committing chain snatching offences including
sacred mangal sutras (Nuptial Chains) continuously from
the neck of women folk forcibly having felt that the cases
registered against him under the ordinary law have no
deterrent effect in curbing his prejudicial activities, and
having believed strongly that he is not amenable to ordinary
law and as such, having satisfied that there is an imminent
possibility of the proposed detenu indulging in similar
prejudicial activities against, which would be prejudicial to
the maintenance of Public Order, unless he is prevented
from doing so by an appropriate order of detention.
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on
me under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the "Telangana
prevention, detention Act 1 of 1986 (Amendment Act No.
13 of 2018)" R/w G.O. Rt. No. 792, General Administration
(Spl. Law & Order) Department, Dated : 29-05-2023, I do
hereby order that the accused/proposed detenu Nenavath
Ravi, who is a "Goonda" be detained from the date of
service of this order on him and lodge in Central Prison,
Cherlapally Medchal Dist."
6.
The grounds of detention dated 12.09.2023 furnished to the appellant
herein along with the order of detention referred to above read thus: -
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
1193
Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
"GROUNDS FOR DETENTION IN RESPECT OF NENAVATH
RAVI UNDER THE "TELANGANA PREVENTION OF
DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF BOOTLEGGERS,
DACOITS, DRUG-OFFENDERS, GOONDAS, IMMORAL
TRAFFIC OFFENDERS, LAND-GRABBERS, SPURIOUS
SEED OFFENDERS, INSECTICIDE OFFENDERS,
FERTILISER 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, 1
OF 1986 (AMENDMENT ACT NO. 13 OF 2018)"
You, Nenavath Ravi S/o. Nenavath Jagan, Age: 23 years,
Occ: Coolie, R/o Indiranagar Colony, Chandrayanagutta,
Hyderabad, N/o. Padamati Thanda village, Neredugumma
Mandal, Nalongda District are a "Goonda" as defined in
clause (g) of section 2 of the "Telangana prevention of
dangerous activities of bootleggers, 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 1 of 1986 (Amendment Act no. 13 of
2018)" and that you have been habitually engaging yourself
in unlawful acts and indulging in committing of Property
Offences, Robberies/Gold Chain Snatching offences
including sacred Mangalasutras by using criminal force on
women folk in Public streets continuously, repeatedly in one
localised area in Madgul PS limits and thereby, creating
widespread fear, panic among the general public and thus
your activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public
Order and adversely affecting the society.
Thus, in the recent past, during the year 2023, in quick
succession, you along with your associates were involved
in (04) offences under penal sections covered by Chapter
1194
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
XVII of Indian Penal Code, 1860, vide Cr.Nos.) 129/2023
U/s 379 IPC of PS Chinthapally, 2) 39/2023 U/s 394 IPC of
Madgul P.S. 3) 106/2023 Us 356, 379 IPC of Chinthapally
PS and 4) 107/2023 U/s 392 IPC of Madgul P.S.
Among the above offences, (02) offences vide Cr Nos:
1) 129/2023, 2) 106/2023 were reported to be out of
this Commissionerate limits and as such the above (02)
offences committed by you are referred to as criminal
history and not relied upon..
The remaining (02) offences committed by in Rachakonda
Commissionerate limits vide Cr Nos: 1) 39/2023, 2)
107/2023 of Madgul P.S. are considered as grounds for
your detention.
You had committed all the above property theft offences
including gold chain snatching offences continuously,
repeatedly and in quick succession which are falling within
proximity period.
Thus, you have been committing offences continuously, and
repeatedly in order to earn easy money to lead lavish life,
which are punishable under Chapter XVII of Indian penal
Code. You are also committing illegal acts (thefts) involving
breach of peace and public tranquility. Your continuous
presence in the area is detrimental to the maintenance
of public order apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility
and social harmony in the society.
THE FACTS OF THE FOLLOWING (02) ROBBERIES,
THEFTS/CHAIN SNATCHING OFFENCES COMMITTED
BY YOU IN THE RECENT PAST WHICH AMPLY
DEMONSTRATE YOUR HABITUAL NATURE OF
COMMITTING CRIME CREATING LARGE SCALE FEAR
IN THE MINDS OF WOMEN COMMUNITY THEREBY
RESTRAINING THEM FROM FREELY MOVING ON
PUBLIC STREETS EVEN DURING BROAD DAY LIGHT
AND YOUR ACTIVITIES ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER
1)
Cr.No. 39/2023 U/s 394 IPC of Madgul Police Station
Dt: 20-03-20223
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
1195
Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
Facts of the case are that on 20.03.2023 at 19.45 hrs
received a complaint from the complainant/victim Kuntala
Laxmamma S/o Anjaiah, Age 55 years, Occ: Sweeper, R/o
Kolkulapally (V), Madgul (M), R.R (D) in which she stated
that on 20.03.2023 at about 1800 hrs, while the complainant
was on her way laid from her work place in Sri Mahalaxmi
Rice Mill at Kolkulapally Gate, en-route near Jaanam well,
three unknown persons aged about 25-30 years followed
from her behind and started pretending as searching for
Toddy, and thus, they suddenly pounced on her, pasted a
plaster on her mouth and tried to remove her silver cups
(vendi Kadiyalu) from her legs. But, they could not succeed
and as such they robbed Rs. 7550/- from her tiffin carrier
box and fled away from the place. Further, she added that
she can identify them if she sees them again. Hence, she
requested to take necessary action against the persons.
Basing on the above contents, a case in Cr No: 39/2023 U/s
394 IPC has been registered and taken up investigation.
During the course of investigation, the IO visited the scene
of offence and recorded the details of the scene of offence
observation in Crime Details Form (CDF). IO examined
the complainant, other witnesses who got panicked on
seeing the incident in broad day light and recorded their
detailed statements.
While the investigation was in progress, it was detected by
arresting the accused/proposed detenu in Cr No. 107/2023
u/s 392 IPC of Madgul PS on 12-08-2023. During the
examination, he confessed his guilt of offence of the above
case and other offences as well. The offender/propose
detenu confessed that they spent entire booty for their
lavish expenses.
Role & participation of this proposed detenu:-
It was made out that the offender/proposed detenu
Nenavath Ravi (A-3) was sitting in rear side seat of the auto
along with A-4 and they noticed a lady near Kolakulapalli
village outskirts, Madgul after passing some distance
A-1 Ramesh was driving the auto they forcibly took her
into the bushes and when A-4 Munavath Naresh caught
1196
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
her legs and then proposed detenu A-3 Nenavath Ravi
caught her hands and A-1 tried to rob her silver anklets
but A-1 could not remove the same and as last resort, he
committed theft of Rs. 7,550/- from the complainant tiffin
box and fled away into the auto. They spend entire booty
for their lavish expenses.
As such, he was produced before the Hon'ble Court by
executing PT warrant on 24-08-2023 and thus regularized
his arrest in the case. The case is UI for collecting further
evidence.
2)
Cr. No. 107/2023 U/s 392 of Madgul Police Station,
Dt: 01-08-2023
Facts of the case are that on 01-08-2023 at 1700
hours received a complaint from the complainant Smt.
Nutanaganti Pullama W/o late Rama Lingaiah Age: 80
years R/o Madgul (V) & (M), R.R (D) in which she stated
that on 01.08.2023 at about 1430 hours when she was
sitting in front of her house and in the meantime one
unknown person age about 20-30 years came to her by
foot and all of a sudden he robbed her two rows Gold
Nuptial Chain weighing about 03 tolas and fled away on
the bike on which another unknown person was already
waiting and both of them escaped on the bike towards
Mall route. The person who robbed her gold chain had
worn yellow colour shirt and while she raised screams,
her neighbour Gandikota Jangaiah came there, but at
the time both the persons escaped away from there. The
complainant further stated that she can identify them if
she sees them again. Hence the complainant requested
to take necessary action.
Basing on the above contents, a case in CR No. 107/2023
U/s 356, 379 IPC has been registered and subsequently
altered to Section 392 IPC.
During the course of Investigation, Police visited the
scene of offence and recorded the details of the scene of
offence observations in Crime Details Form (CDF). The
IO examined the complainant and other witnesses and
recorded their detailed statements.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
1197
Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
Further, collected CC footages from the vicinity of
crime scene analysed the same and through which it
was identified the offender Munavath Ramesh and his
associate while they were having a recce. Upon that the
IO setup informants and deputed search parties to locate
the offenders.
While the investigation was in progress, the police
Madgul arrested the offender/proposed detenu Nenavath
Ravi on 12-08-2023 at 1230 hours Cr. No. 107/2023
of PS Madgul and produced before the Hon'ble JFCM
at Amangal for judicial remand and lodged in Central
Prison Cherlapally.
In pursuance of his confession, police seized stolen booty
i.e. 1) Honda Shine Motor Cycle BR No: TS 05 EZ 6413
pertaining to Cr No. 129/20232 of PS Chintapally from the
house of his relative in Manneguda village at his instance
in the presence of mediators.
Further, the investigating Officer seized 1) One Auto
bearing No: TS 12 UA 7860, 2) One Splendor Plus
bike bearing No: TS 05 FK 9086 which were used for
commission of offences have also been seized from the
possession of his associates at his instance. In addition,
Gold jewellery in all cases totaling 11.7 tolas was also
seized from the possession of his associate Munavath
Ramesh (A-1) at the instance of this proposed detenu
and other associates. The case is UI for collecting further
evidence.
Linking Evidence:
i)
In pursuance of his confession, Police seized stolen
booty i.e. Gold pusthelathadu weighing about (03)
tolas from the position of his associate Munnavat
Ramesh A-1 at his instance.
ii)
CC footages collected from the vicinity of crime
scene. It can be seen his associates while they were
having recce. The above evidence establishes the
involvement of proposed detenu.
1198
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Role & participation of this proposed detenu:
In this case, while the proposed detenu along with A4
Munavath Naresh was waiting on Sagar Highway, the
offenders A-1, A2 went near the victim and forcibly robed
her gold nuptial chain weighing about (03) tolas from
the neck of victim woman and reached to A-3 (propose
detenu) and A-4. They gave stolen booty to A-3 and A-4
and disbursed from the spot on their vehicles.
As per clause (g) of section 2 of the "Telangana prevention,
detention Act 1 of 1986 (Amendment Act No. 13 of 2018)"
a "Goonda" means "a person who either by himself or
as a member of or leader of gang, habitually commits or
attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences,
which are punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII
or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code".
You have been indulging in the offences falling under
chapter XVII of IPC and you are habitually indulging in
criminal activities in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of Public Order and enforcement of ordinary penal laws
could not prevent you from indulging in such activities.
After having come to know about criminal activities
of proposed detenu through media and on account
of chain snatching offences that were taken place
in a small village of Madgul in the Commissionerate
limits in recent past, the General Public especially
women folk those who are going for work on daily
wages in the area got panicked and apprehended fear
of coming out of their houses by wearing even their
sacred Gold Nuptial Threads which is sentiment to
large section of Indian women. Thus, the incidents
created panic in the minds of general public living in
Madgul village and thereby your criminal activities are
adversely affecting the Public Order and leaving large
section of people under the grip of fear and shock.
Therefore, your activities are required to be prevented
by an appropriate detention order.
WHEREAS, I am aware that you have filed 1st bail petition
in Cr No.: 107/2023 of PS Madgul before the Hon'ble JFCM
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
1199
Nenavath Bujji Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
at Amangal on 07-08-20 23 vide Crl MP No. 285/2023.
Police filed counter and prosecution opposed not to grant
bail to you. Accordingly, the bail petition was dismissed
on 24-08-2023.
You have again filed fresh bail petitions in two ground cases
vide CR Nos: 1) 39/2023 of PS Madgul, 2) 107/2023 of
PS Madgul before the Hon'ble JFCM at Amangal. Police
filed counters opposing to grant bail. Even though, the
bail petitions were allowed by granting conditional bail
to you on 05-09-2023 vide Crl Mp Nos: 1) 337/2023,
2) 307/2023. Consequently, you were released in two
ground cases vide release order Dis Nos: 1) 1741/2023,
2) 1742/2023 respectively. You were also granted bail in all
other remaining history cases and consequently released
from jail after furnishing sureties.
The conditions imposed by the Court in two ground cases
are i) The offender/proposed detenu shall not tamper the
witnesses/victim during the course of further investigation,
ii) he is directed to appear before the court as and when
directed without fail, iii) He is directed not to leave the
state without permission of the Court.
I have perused all the above conditions of the bail and
however, those conditions do not affect of passing the
order of detention
On account of your antecedents, bail orders granted
therein and consequently released from jail, the way
you were indulging in committing chain snatching
offences including sacred mangal sutras (nuptial chains)
continuously from the neck of women folk forcibly, having
felt that the cases registered against you under the
ordinary law have no deterrent effect in curbing your
prejudicial activities and having believed strongly that you
are not amenable to ordinary law and as such, having
satisfied that there is an imminent possibility of indulging
in similar prejudicial activities again, which would be
prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order unless
you are prevented from doing so by an appropriate order
of detention.
1200
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Hence, I am satisfied that a detention Order under
the provisions of the "Telangana prevention, detention
Act 1 of 1986 (Amendment Act no. 13 of 2018) should
be invoked against you, and you should be detained
under sub-section (2) of section 3 of Act No. 1 of 1986
(Amendment Act No. 13 of 2018)" R/w G.O. Rt. No. 792,
General Administration (Spl.