Not justified to invoke preventive detention law due to involvement in sexual offence: Supreme Court

The aepx court quashed the detention order passed on the ground that the detenue, along with his associates, was allegedly involved in committing rape upon a public servant and robbing her of valuables including Apple Phone.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said it is not justified to invoke stringent provision for preventive detention against a man, just because he was involved in a sexual offence, including one related to gang rape.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Aravind Kumar quashed the detention order passed on the ground that the detenue, along with his associates, was allegedly involved in committing rape upon a public servant and robbing her of valuables including Apple Phone.

The detention order claimed there is an imminent possibility of the man from Guntur district again committing similar offences which would be detrimental to public order and would create fear and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the women folk.

"These are solitary instances of allegations of extortion and rape. There is no material before the detaining authority to indicate that the detenu is in the habit of committing the same offence yet again. In the absence of any material of this nature, there is absolutely no justification for the order of June 30, 2023," the bench said.

The court quashed detention order passed by the District Collector on June 30, 2023 against Bandi Narayana, brother of appellant Vaddi Lakshmi, finding that it was not explained how involvement in solitary instance of the accused would be prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

"We are of the opinion that invocation of Section 3 of the 1986 Act is not justified as mere involvement in a sexual offence, including one under Section 376D of the IPC, by itself will not be sufficient to invoke Section 3 of the 1986 Act," the bench said.

According to the stringent law, the offence must be integrally connected ‘with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’, the bench said.

"It is not decipherable as to how the offence is connected to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order," the bench said.

In the case, the court noted, the allegation of rape made on May 01, 2023 was only in addition to the earlier allegation of extortion of April 27, 2023.

The court found the order of detention, coupled with its confirmation, was not sustainable in law.