Telangana High Court Upholds Detention Of Man Accused Of Robbing Jewellery Stores, Including One While On Bail; Dismisses Father’s Habeas Corpus Plea
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Telangana, Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking production of his son, who had been preventively detained for allegedly committing two armed robberies at jewellery shops within a span of two months, one of which occurred while he was on bail. The Court upheld the detention under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, noting that the acts amounted to habitual criminal conduct affecting public order. It observed that the detenu’s repeated involvement in serious offences created a sense of insecurity among citizens and brought him within the definition of a “Goonda,” thereby justifying continuation of preventive detention.
The petitioner, the father of the detenu, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the order of preventive detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The petition sought production of the detenu, alleging that the detention order was arbitrary and violated his personal liberty under the Constitution.
The detenu was accused in two criminal cases involving armed robbery at jewellery stores in Hyderabad. The first incident occurred in February 2024, where he, along with associates, allegedly entered a jewellery shop and robbed gold ornaments at gunpoint. The second offence was committed in April 2024 while he was on bail, involving a similar robbery at another jewellery shop. Both cases were registered under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The detaining authority stated that these acts, committed in quick succession, caused public alarm and fear, thereby disturbing public order.
The petitioner contended that the alleged offences were already subject to criminal proceedings and that preventive detention could not be invoked when ordinary law was sufficient to deal with such conduct. It was argued that the detenu was not a habitual offender and that the detention was passed mechanically without proper application of mind.
The State, represented through the Government Pleader, submitted that the detenu’s repeated acts of armed robbery showed a continuing tendency to commit grave offences and that his release on bail in the earlier case had enabled him to reoffend. It was argued that his actions disrupted public peace and fell within the ambit of a “Goonda” as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. The State maintained that preventive detention was necessary to prevent further criminal acts and maintain public order.
The Court observed that “the detenu was involved in two grave offences of armed robbery within a short span of two months, one of which was committed while he was on bail in the earlier case.” It recorded that “the acts attributed to the detenu were committed in broad daylight and created fear and panic among the public, particularly among shopkeepers and traders engaged in the jewellery business.”
The Court stated that “the nature of the offences and the timing of their commission indicate that the detenu has developed a tendency to indulge in similar activities repeatedly, showing continuity in his criminal behaviour.” It further noted that “the detenu’s actions cannot be considered as isolated incidents affecting only law and order but have wider implications on public order and the sense of safety among citizens.”
Referring to the legal distinction between law and order and public order, the Court recorded that “individual offences, though punishable under criminal law, may not always justify preventive detention; however, when such acts cause disturbance to the public at large or spread panic, they assume the character of public order issues.” The Bench stated that “the apprehension of future conduct based on the pattern of past criminal activity is sufficient to justify preventive detention under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act.”
The Court observed that “the detaining authority has recorded subjective satisfaction after considering all relevant material, including the nature of offences, the proximity between the two incidents, and the likelihood of the detenu committing similar offences in the near future.” It also stated that “there is no material to indicate non-application of mind by the detaining authority or violation of procedural safeguards prescribed under law.”
The Bench noted that “the definition of a ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(g) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act includes any person who habitually commits offences punishable under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code.” It recorded that “the conduct of the detenu squarely falls within the said definition, having regard to his repeated involvement in offences of robbery under Sections 395 and 397 IPC.”
The Court finally stated that “the detention order was passed to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and cannot be faulted on any legal ground.”
The Court stated: “We accordingly do not find any scope for interference in the impugned orders of detention, i.e., orders dated 08.11.2024, 12.11.2024 and consequential orders. W.P.No.9893 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. M. Vanajakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
For the Respondents: Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
Case Title: Aziz Hassan Kotadia v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 9893 of 2025.
Bench: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharyya; Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar.
