Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the preventive detention order passed under the Telangana Preventive Detention Act was justified where the detenu was alleged to be involved in chain-snatching cases and had been released on default bail, and whether the alleged conduct disclosed a public order problem rather than a mere law and order issue.
Analysis: The detention was founded on four robbery-related cases under the Indian Penal Code, all of which had resulted in bail because the investigation was not completed within the prescribed time. The Court held that the material disclosed, at highest, ordinary criminality falling within the sphere of law and order. It emphasised that preventive detention is an exceptional measure intended to protect public order and cannot be invoked routinely where the ordinary criminal law provides adequate remedies. The distinction between law and order and public order was applied to hold that the alleged acts did not cross the threshold required for preventive detention. The Court also noted that, if the detenu was in fact a menace, the proper course was to seek cancellation of bail or pursue appeal in the ordinary process.
Conclusion: The preventive detention order was unjustified and liable to be set aside, as the case concerned law and order and not public order.