The supreme court bench comprising Justice RF Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy held that a possible apprehension of breach of law and order cannot be a ground to detain a person under Preventive Detention Laws.

The present petition arises from the judgement of the state of telangana by which the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order passed against the petitioner’s husband under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 was dismissed. The detention order refers to the five FIRs filed against the detenu (petitioner’s husband) under sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC.  According to the respondent No. 2, the detenu is a 'White Collar Offender' and he has been habitually and continuously engaging himself in series of unlawful activities by committing criminal breach of trust and cheating the innocent public by collecting huge money under the guise of investing the same in stock market and promising good profit, in an organized way, and thereby creating large scale fear and insecurity among the gullible public, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The impugned judgement held that a perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the detenu was granted bail by the Courts concerned in all the five cases relied upon by the detaining authority for preventively detaining him.  The facts of the case are that by relying on five criminal cases registered against the detenu within the limits of Hyberabad Police Commissionerate, the respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, passed the detention order.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Gaurav Agarwal, said that there is no proximate or live connection between the acts complained of and the date of the Detention Order and argued that the Detention Order was totally perverse in that it was passed only because anticipatory bail/bail applications were granted. The correct course of action would have been for the State to move to cancel the bail that has been granted. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Telangana, argued that the Detenu was a habitual fraudster who had therefore created fear amongst the gullible public, and since he was likely to commit similar offences in future, it was important to preventively detain him.

Referring to the case of  Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970) the bench observed that preventive detention is a necessary evil only to prevent public disorder and the Court must ensure that the facts brought before it directly and inevitably lead to a harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof at large. 

The Supreme Court held that a possible apprehension of breach of law and order can be said to be made out if it is apprehended that the Detenu, if set free, will continue to cheat gullible persons. Therefore, the court quashed the detention order on this ground and accordingly, the appeal was allowed.