01Facts
The six petitioners were detained under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, after being classified as “Goondas” under Section 2(g).
¶ 1–6, 20, 25The detention orders relied on a single criminal case, Crime No. 265 of 2025, concerning the alleged premeditated murder of Kethavath Chandu Rathod in a public park.
¶ 1–6, 20, 25The petitioners challenged the orders by writ petitions seeking habeas corpus; the State had confirmed the detention orders.
¶ 1–6, 20, 25The petitioners argued, among other things, that one crime could not establish the “habitual” conduct required by the statutory definition of “Goonda”.
¶ 1–6, 20, 2502Issues
i.1. Whether a detenu may be classified as a “Goonda” under Section 2(g) of the 1986 Act when the detention order relies on only one criminal case.
¶ 20, 22–25ii.2. Whether the gravity, brutality or public setting of that single alleged offence can, without evidence of habitual offending, satisfy the statutory requirement for preventive detention on the ground that the detenu is a “Goonda”.
¶ 27–3003Law Applied
Section 2(g) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 defines a “Goonda” as a person who, alone or as a member or leader of a gang, “habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets” specified offences under Chapters XVI, XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code.
¶ 22–24“Habitually” requires repetition or continuity; a solitary offence, however grave, does not by itself establish habituality.
¶ 22–24, 27, 30The Court also treated the Act’s restrictions on personal liberty as requiring precise and strict construction.
¶ 22–24, 27, 30Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
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. Section 2Section 3
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115Section 103Section 61Section 3
Arms Act, 1959 Section 25Section 27
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3
04Reasoning
The detention orders relied on Crime No. 265 of 2025 and did not identify any other crime or material establishing that any petitioner habitually committed the specified offences.
¶ 25–27Although the alleged murder was described as brutal, premeditated and committed in a public place, those circumstances could not replace the separate statutory requirement of habituality.
¶ 17–18, 28–30Because the orders failed to establish that threshold requirement, the petitioners could not lawfully be classified as “Goondas” under Section 2(g).
¶ 2905Holding
The Court held that the detention orders were unlawful because they relied on a single crime and did not establish habitual offending as required by Section 2(g) of the 1986 Act.
¶ 29–31It set aside the detention orders and directed the Superintendent of Jail to release the detenus forthwith, unless they were required to be detained in connection with another case or crime.
¶ 33–34All six writ petitions were allowed.
¶ 33–34Original Court PDF
Atmakuri Srinu and NagarajuvsThe State of Telangana
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
