Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shyamlal vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 28 April, 2017
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas, G.R. Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Habeas Corpus No. 32 / 2017
Shyamlal S/o Harchand Ram,, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Bishnoi,
R/o Jud P.S. Karwad, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Through Wife Maya W/o
Shyam Lal Age 21 Years R/o Jud P.S. Karwad, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of Homes,
Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Dy. Secretary, Department of Homes,, State of Rajasthan
Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Magistrate,, Jodhpur.
4. The Commissioner of Police,, Jodhpur.
5. The Deputy Commissioner (East),, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Vyas, AAG
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI Judgment Per Hon'ble Mr.Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas Date of Judgment: 28th April, 2017.
In this habeas corpus petition filed by the detenue Shyam Lal, through his wife Maya, the order dated 29.1.2017 (Annex.2) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur and order dated 9.2.2017 (Annex.5) passed by the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, so also, the detention (2 of 17) [HC-32/2017] order dated 14.3.2017 passed by the State Government after approval by the Advisory Board to detenue the petitioner for one year, is under challenge.
As per facts of the case, on the basis of 20 criminal cases registered against the petitioner detenue Shyam Lal Bishnoi at various Police Stations of Jodhpur and the complaint filed against him under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C., the case of the detenue Shyam Lal was recommended vide complaint dated 29.1.2017 by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur (East) on the basis of number of cases registered against Shyam Lal to the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur for exercising powers under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006 for short). After considering the entire material and the fact that detenue become serious problem for maintain peace submitted before the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur an order was passed by the said authority on the same date on 29.1.2017 whereby the petitioner was arrested and sent to the Central Jail, Jodhpur. In the order dated 29.1.2017, served upon the detenue Shyam Lal, the reasons upon which order for detention was passed were enclosed and further an opportunity was granted to the detenue to submit his representation to the Government/advisory board against the order of detention.
The petitioner detenue filed his reply against the said order of detention vide Annex.4 and submit that reasons upon which action to detain him has been passed are totally baseless, so also, the order of detention is in violation of mandatory provisions of (3 of 17) [HC-32/2017] the Act of 2006, therefore, the order passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur may kindly be set aside.
The State Government after considering the reply field by the petitioner detenue approved the order of detention passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur vide order dated 9.2.2017 and placed before the advisory board as per the provisions of the Act of 2006 and advisory board after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner confirmed the order passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur to detain the petitioner Shyam Lal for one year commencing from 29.1.2017 to 28.1.2018.
In this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash all the impugned orders of the detention.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although 20 cases were registered against the detneue Shyam Lal but out of 20 criminal cases registered against him he was acquitted in criminal case registered against him at Police Station Mathaniya under Section 341, 323, 325/34 IPC on the basis of compromise and in another case no.5/2011 registered at Police Station Mathaniya, the petitioner detenue was acquitted from the charge levelled against him by the competent court after trial while giving benefit of doubt, but against the said judgment, appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan is pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited our attention towards the fact that in charge-sheet no.175 dated 20.12.2008 filed by the Police Station Mathaniya under Section 341, 323, 324, 147, 148 and 149 IPC, the Juvenile Justice Board though held guilty and punished the petitioner on 16.9.2013 but (4 of 17) [HC-32/2017] the said case was registered against him in the year 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited attention towards the case mentioned at S.no.9 in the details of the case (Annex.3) in which petitioner was granted benefit of probation of Offenders Act, therefore, submit that out of 20 cases only 16 cases are pending in which the petitioner is facing trial, and still not held guilty by the competent criminal court, therefore, the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur contrary to law because there is no satisfactory material on record so as to take action for detention against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act of 2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the order impugned has been passed in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act, because upon harmonious reading of Section 3,9 and 12 of the Act of 2006 reflects a scheme, where detention order is ordered by the District Magistrate or the delegated authority by the State Government under Section 3(2), the said order is required to be communicated to the detenue with an opportunity to represent his case before the District Magistrate so as to consider the grounds raised by the detenue against the detention order. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that material which is taken into consideration to treat the detenue-petitioner as "dangerous person" is not sufficient to declare him "dangerous person" because in between 2008 to 2016 though 20 cases were registered against him but out of 20 cases, 4 cases have already been decided and other 16 cases are still pending in which the petitioner is facing trial, (5 of 17) [HC-32/2017] therefore , the orders impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed.
It is argued that as per best knowledge of the petitioner, the order of detention has been passed solely on the basis of report submitted by the Dy. Commissioner of Police (East) Jodhpur, without application of mind, that too, without providing an opportunity of hearing, therefore, the order of detention is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents is outcome of malafide exercise of powers and complete non-application of mind. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention towards the fact that petitioner was arrested in connection of criminal case and sent to the judicial custody on 11.5.2016, remained in custody till 18.5.2016 and, thereafter, he was again sent to the judicial custody from 9.8.2016 upto 28.8.2016, therefore, it is obvious that petitioner already remained in judicial custody before passing the order of detention, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner was causing any threat to the public nor there was any apprehension that petitioner detenue will commit such criminal activity, so as to treat him "dangerous person" to take action for detention as per the Act.
The crux of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that action has been taken by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur without application of mind and considering the fact that petitioner remained in judicial custody for considerable period before passing the order of detention. The learned counsel for the invited our attention towards the judgment of the Jaipur Bench of this (6 of 17) [HC-32/2017] court in the case of Ajay Rinwa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors passed in DB Habeas Corpus Petition No.1243/2016, decided on 19.9.2016 and submits that detention of the petitioner is in violation of mandatory provisions of the Act, and in violation of Article 19 and 21 of the constitution of India, therefore, as per the verdict given by the Division Bench in aforesaid case, the order of detention may kindly be quashed.
Per contra learned AAG submits that number of cases were registered against the petitioner upon complaint filed by different victim against his criminal activities. In those cases registered against him after investigation, numbers of challan were filed in the competent trial court since 2008, out of 20 cases registered against him, in two cases he was acquitted while giving benefit of doubt, but in other two cases, he was granted benefit of probation after holding him guilty, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of detention passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur which is confirmed by the State Government and advisory board is illegal or in contravention of fundamental rights of the petitioner.
Learned AAG further argued that detenue Shyam Lal was ordered to be detained in exercise of power under Section 3(1)(2) of the Act of 2006 and said action was taken against him for the reason that 20 cases for serious offences of IPC were registered against him and Police Station Karwad, Jodhpur opened history- sheet against him due to repeated criminal activities from last more than 9 years, therefore, obviously, the petitioner detenue falls under the definition of "dangerous person" under the Act of 2006, because the petitioner detneue became problem for public (7 of 17) [HC-32/2017] at large, therefore, to stop his criminal activities, which is prejudicial to the public order, the action has been taken against him for detention under the Act of 2006.
Learned AAG further argued that from the criminal record, the petitioner constituted a gang with the aid of accomplice, and committed severe offences of causing physical assaults with deadly weapon and made threat to the public at large which is evident from the fact that number of cases were registered against him causing massive injuries and keeping illegal arms and ammunitions, theft of transformers, attack on toll pots with accomplice and created eminent danger to the public order. Therefore, after recording satisfaction on the basis of material made available by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, the order of detention was passed which is not illegal in any manner, for maintaining public peace it is felt necessary by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur to take action against him under Section 3 of the Act in which there is no wrong.
Learned AGG vehemently argued that there is no violation of mandatory provisions of the Act of 2006 because after arresting, the detenue Shyam Lal was granted an opportunity to file his explanation, thereafter his case was placed before the advisory board after approval by the State Government for confirmation and after confirmation by the advisory board, final detention order has been passed, therefore, it cannot be said that before passing the order of detention, subjective satisfaction was not recorded by the competent authority.
While inviting attention towards the definition of "dangerous (8 of 17) [HC-32/2017] person" enumerated under Section 2(c) of the Act of 2006 it is submitted that number of cases were registered against him one after another for the offences of IPC, proceedings under Sections 110, 116(3) and 151 Cr.P.C. was also initiated and a history- sheet was also opened, but his activities could not be stopped, therefore, it is obvious that general law became ineffective to stop the criminal activities of the detenue, therefore, the detention order was passed by the Police Commissioner of Jodhpur after taking into consideration entire material placed before him by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur.
It is also submitted that Section 2(g) of the Act of 2006 provides definition of "habitual offender", the word "habitual" with all its grammatical variations, includes acts or omissions committed repeatedly, persistently and frequently having a thread to continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts or omission but shall not include isolated, individual and dissimilar acts or omission. The detenue is, apart from habitual offender is also a "dangerous person" and thus, he was found to be a threat for the public order. The advisory board after considering entire material placed before him and providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner confirmed the order of detention for a period of one year, therefore, no interference is called for in this case.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all, we have perused (Annexure.3), the details of the case registered against the petitioner detenue, which reads as under:
(9 of 17) [HC-32/2017] ';keyky iq= Jh gjpUnjke tkfr fo'uksbZ mez 26 lky fuoklh tqM iqfyl Fkkuk djoM tks/kiqj ds fo:) ntZ vkijkf/kd izdj.kA ifjf'k"V ^v* Ø-la- iz-la- rkjh[k /kkjk Fkkuk pktZ "khV ts-,Q- uEcj U;k;ky; urhtk dksVZ dksVZ dsl ist ua-
dk;eh ¼tgka uEcj o dk uke dh fLFkfr
vfHk;ksx fnukad o vkxkeh
ntZ gqvk rkjh[k
gks½ is'kh
fnukad
1 175 29-11-08 341] 323] 324] eFkkfu;k 171@20-12-08 54@2009 fd"kksj U;k; fnukad & 01&14
147] 148] 149 cksMZ] tks/kiqj 16-09-13 dks
Hkknl 1 ekg rd
fo"ks'k fd'kksj
x`g esa Hkstus
dh ltk
2 127 21-08-09 341] 323] eFkkfu;k 126@16-09-09 96@2012 ,lh,e,e jkthukek & 15&27
325@34 ua- 05 fnukad
Hkknl tks/kiqj 29-10-13
3 61 11-06-10 384 Hkk-n-l- eFkkfu;k 52@27-06-10 292@2011 ,lh,e,e iSf.Max Vªk;y 15-02-17 28&56
ua- 04
tks/kiqj
4 02 21-01-11 143] 342] 365] eFkkfu;k 05@15-03-11 01@2016 lhts,e] cjh fnukad UksV & 57&92
147] 149 tks/kiqj 21-11-2016 ls'ku
Hkknl lansg dk U;k;ky;]
ykHk nsdj ftyk
tks/kiqj esa
nks"keqfDr
ds fo:)
vihy dh
xbZA
5 62 07-05-12 341] 323] 384] eFkkfu;k 83@05-07-12 144@2012 vij iSf.Max Vªk;y 30-01-17 93&153
325] 307 Hkk-n- ftyk ,oa
l- ls'ku
U;k;k/kh'k
la[;k 04
tks/kiqj
6 64 15-06-13 379 Hkk-n-l- eFkkfu;k 96@03-09-13 96@2013 ,lh,e,e iSf.Max Vªk;y 31-01-17 154&204
ua- 04
tks/kiqj
7 66 22-06-13 302] 307] 147] eFkkfu;k 99@18-09-13 28@2013 vij iSf.Max Vªk;y 20-03-17 205&267
148] 149] 323] ftyk ,oa
341] 427] ls'ku
120ch Hkk-n-l- U;k;k/kh'k
la- 03
tks/kiqj
8 17 30-01-14 341] 323 eFkkfu;k 24@31-03-14 246@2016 ,lh,e,e iSf.Max Vªk;y 09-02-17 268&285
Hkknl ih-lh-ih-,u-
Mh-Vh- ,DV
tks/kiqj
9 75 18-05-14 379] Hkknl eFkkfu;k 130@20-10-14 27@2014 fof'k"V ltk fnukad & 286&303
136] 137 U;k;k/kh'k 15-12-15 dks
fo|qr fo|qr ifjfo{kk
vf/kfu;e vf/kfu;e vf/kfu;e dh
izdj.k vij /kkjk 4 ds
ls'ku rgr ifjfo{kk
U;k;k/kh'k dk ykHk
la- 01 nsdj
tks/kiqj 5000 :i;s
ds tekur
eqpydk ij
fjgk fd;k
x;kA
10 50 12-04-15 364] 365] 368 yksgkoV 65@31-07-15 35@2015 vij iSf.Max Vªk;y 20-02-17 304&327
Hkknl ftyk ,oa
ls'ku
U;k;k/kh'k
QykSnh
ftyk
tks/kiqj
11 01 01-01-16 342] 323] 325] eFkkfu;k 96@28-06-16 1@16 vfr0 eq[; iSf.Max Vªk;y 13-02-17 328&373
308] 382] 327] egkuxj
(10 of 17)
[HC-32/2017]
427] 458] 147] eftLVªsV
148] 120ch] la[;k 4
149] 201 tks/kiqj
Hkknl egkuxj
12 01 03-01-16 323] 341] 395] erkSM+k 63@05-11-16 184@16 ls'ku iSf.Max Vªk;y 10-03-17 374&402
427 Hkknl U;k;ky;]
ftyk
tks/kiqj
13 48 31-01-16 323] 427] 384] QykSnh 93@25-10-16 1571@2016 ,lhts,e iSf.Max Vªk;y 08-02-17 403&430
147] 149 QykSnh
Hkknl
14 12 01-02-16 323] 427] 341] erkSM+k 81@26-11-16 10@17 ftyk ls'ku iSf.Max Vªk;y 23-02-17 431&464
395] 120ch U;k;ky;]
Hkknl ftyk
tks/kiqj
15 22 26-02-16 341] 323] 427] erkSM+k 80@26-11-16 11@17 ftyk ls'ku iSf.Max Vªk;y 23-02-17 465&509
325] 395] U;k;ky;]
120ch Hkknl ftyk
tks/kiqj
16 169 05-05-16 323] 384] 147] QykSnh 94@25-10-16 1572@206 ,lhts,e iSf.Max Vªk;y 27-03-17 510&534
149 Hkknl QykSnh
17 69 13-06-16 427] 323] 395] erkSM+k 87@08-12-17 & U;kf;d iSf.Max Vªk;y 02-02-17 535&568
120ch Hkknl eftLVªsV]
izFke oxZ
vkSfla;k]
tks/kiqj
18 111 24-06-16 147] 323] 308] yksgkoV tSj vuqla/kku 569&577
341] 342] 365]
427 Hkknl
19 98 16-07-16 147] 148] 149] eFkkfu;k tSj vuqla/kku 578&587
341] 323] 327]
458] 307] 384]
427] 382] 379
Hkknl o 3
ihMhihih ,DV
20 105 30-07-16 323] 341] 365] DjoM 143@12-11-16 vij iSf.Max Vªk;y 20-02-17 588&602
307] 392] 325] ftyk ,oa
147] 148] 149] ls'ku
427 Hkknl U;k;k/kh'k
la[;k 6
tks/kiqj
ifjf"k"V ^c*
Ø- la- balnknh dk;Zokgh is'k djus dh fn0 ljdkj cuke @ dksVZ ts0,Q0 ua0 urhtk U;k;ky; ist ua-
dk uke
1 110 lhvkjihlh Fkkuk 11-02-14 ";keyky fo'uksbZ@ 565@14 ,d o"kZ ds fy, 603&619
djoM tks/kiqj iwoZ lgk;d iqfyl vk;qDr ikcUn fnukad
eq[;ky; ,oa dk;Zikyd 16-05-2016
eftLVªsV iqfyl
dfe"ujsV tks/kiqj
Upon perusal of the aforesaid cases registered against the petitioner it is found that first case was registered against the petitioner on 29.9.2008 when he was juvenile, but he was held guilty by the Juvenile Justice Board vide judgment dated 16.9.2013 and the second case was decided on compromise. In (11 of 17) [HC-32/2017] the 4th case mentioned above was registered against him under Section 143, 342, 365, 147 and 149 IPC but he was acquitted while giving benefit of doubt by the CJM, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 21.11.2015 but appeal against the said judgment is pending.
The case mentioned at S.No.9 was registered against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC read with Section 136 and 137 of the Electricity Act at Police Station Mathaniya, in that case he was held guilty but granted benefit of Probation, which is evident from the details of the cases furnished by the respondents. All other cases are still pending against the petitioner.
It is also worthwhile to mention here that in the year 2016 right from Jan., 2016 to 30.7.2016, 10 cases were registered against the petitioner at Police Station Mathaniya, Matoda, Phalodi, Lohawat, Karwad and most of the cases are pending against him. Upon perusal of the seriousness of the offences it is obvious that the cases were registered against the petitioner for the serious offences of the IPC including for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 384, 365, 395, 308, 382 IPC and offences under the provisions of PDPP Act. It is also obvious that in most of the cases, charge-sheets were filed with the aid of Section 147, 148 and 149 IPC. Meaning thereby, he has created a gang to disturb the peace and to commit offences. It is admitted fact that in spell of last seven months, 10 cases were registered against the petitioner in which though he was arrested but granted bail but not stopped his criminal activities so as to commit offence. In our opinion, the material which is taken into consideration by the (12 of 17) [HC-32/2017] Police Commissioner, Jodhpur to take action against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act of 2006 does not suffer from any illegality because not only 10 cases were registered within the spell of 7 months against the petitioner, and detenue has involved himself to commit serious offences which has created problem for public at large.
To consider the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that mandatory provisions have not been followed by the respondents before passing the order of detention, we have perused the grounds mentioned in the writ petition. In none of the grounds which mandatory provision is violated by the respondent authority has not been disclosed. It is very strange that the grounds related to other writ petition in which order was passed by the District Collector, Bikaner are incorporated. The grounds nos. C to I of the writ petition are as follows:
" C. That even if petitioner was found involved in number of criminal cases the learned Magistrate cannot lose sight of the fact that out of 19 cases he was acquitted in 2 cases and not in a single case Detenue was convicted except 01 & 09 this fact itself goes to suggest the Detenue has falsely been implicated in show many cases due to enmity or on oblique motive and mere pendency of the criminal cases it cannot be said that the petitioner is " Dangerous person"
therefore, the order of detention deserves to be quashed.
D. That there was no explanation from the material available on records as to what activity, adverse to the maintenance of the public order were found to have been committed by the Detenue, requiring his detention and as to why there was so much of the delay in the passing of the order of detention for the alleged illegal activities after filing the complaint on 29.01.2017.
E. That secondly, even from the bare perusal of record as incompletely submitted by the Superintended of Police Bikaner, have no foundation to shows any grounds against the petitioner to declare him "dangerous persons" under (13 of 17) [HC-32/2017] Section 2(c) of the Act of 2006, on the basis of report as submitted by the S.P. Bikaner which shows there is fear of petitioner among the public at large. Whereas case registered against Detenue which does not shows petitioner is dangerous persons, habitual offender, therefore under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no circumstances prevails for the passing the order of detention, and there is no circumstances is likely to be prevailed in future, looking to the irregularity of logging the cases against the humble petitioner. Therefore the order of detention of petitioner is deserve to be quashed and set aside.
F. The delegation of power under Section 3(2) of the Rajasthan prevention of anti social activity at 2006, to the district magistrate Bikaner, for the authority delegated by the state government purporting to be exercise in the above- mentioned section to pass the order of detention is arbitrary, without due application of mind, and in non-compliance of the above mention section of the act of 2006. That without being satisfied as to whether there were prevailing circumstances or likely to prevail in any area within the jurisdiction of district magistrate, the state government had issued a general notification (not specifically to the petitioner) delegating powers to district magistrates Bikaner, in the entire District to exercise power conferred under Section 3(2) of the act of 2006, for detaining a person with a view to prevent him from acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
G. That petitioner several time filed representations to the respondents but till today order of detention not supplied to the petitioner which shows arbitrary acts on the part of respondents where innocent person is ordered to be detain.
H. That till today while filing complaint cases detail have been given by the respondent but all most of the cases are minor offence and in the most cases the Detenue is not main accused and most cases petitioner acquitted from the alleged offences. But respondents detained to the petitioner which shows the arbitrary act of the respondent and as per definition given in the act Detenue should be released by the respondent authority.
I. That the expression "circumstances prevailing" means the existing circumstances while expression "likely to prevail" means the circumstances which may prevail in future and even in a case where the state government is satisfied, that the conferment of such power is necessary, there has to be a specific order as to whether as a result of "circumstances prevailing" or due to "circumstances likely to be prevail" in future, such conferment of power under sub (14 of 17) [HC-32/2017] section 2 of section 3 of act of 2006 is necessary, which being silent in the above-mentioned section to the district magistrates, Bikaner, among the District Bikaner. Therefore the order of delegation is not in conformity of section 3(2) of the act of 2006, and as such, the notification dated being illegal and void, the action of the district magistrate detaining the petitioner is in violation of the scheme of PASSA Act. The same deserves to be quashed and set aside."
In all these grounds it is averted that action has been taken by the District Magistrate, Bikaner but challenge is made to the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur. Meaning thereby, the writ petition has been filed without even reading the contents of the writ petition, more so, it emerges from a bare reading of the writ petition that grounds of other writ petition related to the action taken by the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner and District Magistrate, Bikaner are incorporated in the writ petition. The writ petition has been filed in very casual manner. In ground (R) it is submitted that last nine cases were from S.No.11 to 19 of Annexure-3 were lodged by the same complainant Abhishek Choudhary with respect to similar type of allegation due to business rivalry, but upon perusal of the details of the case it is obvious that these cases were registered by the different complainant at different Police Stations for difference offences. The case no.11 was registered upon complaint filed by Sandeep Kumar under Section 342, 323, 307, 382, 327, 327, 458, 379, 143, 148 and 120B IPC. The case mentioned at S.No.12 was registered against the petitioner on complaint filed by Rana Ram. The case mentioned at S.No.13 was registered at Police Station Phalodi upon complaint filed by one Sunil, therefore, it is obvious (15 of 17) [HC-32/2017] that false ground is taken by the petitioner that case no.11 to 19 were registered upon complaint filed by one Abhishek Choudhary. Upon perusal of the details of the cases, it is revealed that only case no.17 was registered upon complaint filed by Abhishek Choudhary, none else.
We have perused the order of advisory board dated 23.2.2017 whereby the advisory board confirmed the order of detention passed by the State Authorities for a period of one year on the ground that petitioner detenue Shyam Lal falls under the definition of "dangerous person" enumerated in the Act of 2006. We have perused the definition of "dangerous person" provided in the Act of 2006, which reads as under:
"(c) 'dangerous person' means a person, who either by himself or as member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or a attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act No.45 of 1860) or any of the offences publishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959 (Central Act No.54 of 1959) or any of the offences punishable under first proviso to sub-sec. (1), and sub-sec. (1-A) of Sec. 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Central Act No.53 of 1972) or any offence punishable under sec. 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Central Act No.21 of 2000).
Upon perusal of the aforesaid definition of "dangerous person" coupled with the fact that 20 cases were registered against the petitioner for serious offences, we are of the opinion that action taken by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur does not suffer from any illegality, because due to criminal activities it was felt necessary to restrict the criminal activities of the petitioner and to provide peace to the societies.
(16 of 17) [HC-32/2017] Upon consideration of material available on record upon which action has been taken for detention, there is no question to quash the order of detention because the conduct of the detenue has been found to be prejudicial to maintain public order, the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur applied its mind towards the number of cases registered against the detenue, which are of serious nature and after recording satisfaction framed definite opinion that the detenue was acting in the manner prejudicially to the public at large; and it was not possible to restrict his criminal activities upon existing action available with the police. The petitioner who falls in the category of dangerous person affected the public order adversely, which is evident from the fact that 20 cases were requested against him and in the year 2016 more than six cases were registered against him.
We have also considered the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ajay Rinwa (supra), in which a coordinate bench of this Court held that detention should not be passed in violation of mandatory provisions of the Act. Upon perusal of entire pleadings of the writ petition, it is revealed that none of the mandatory provisions of the Act of 2006 have been violated by the respondents. Furthermore, this writ petition has been filed in a very casual manner incorporating the grounds of other writ petition related to detention order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, which has nothing to do with the case at hand, as in this writ petition the detention order was passed by the Commissioner of Police Jodhpur upon report submitted by Dy. Commissioner of Police (East), Jodhpur.
(17 of 17) [HC-32/2017] Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Rinwa (supra) does not apply upon the facts of the present case.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in this writ petition because the order of detention is perfectly inconsonance with law.
Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is hereby dismissed. (G.R. MOOLCHANDANI)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J. cpgoyal/ps