Jharkhand High Court
Mungert Yaday vs Wie Pa on 2 March, 2023
aL otters $P alent Appellate fotisdiction) LPA No. 568 of 2122 Mungert Yaday, aged about 60 years, s/o late k Colony, PO and PS-Borio, District-Sahebgan). wo Appellant Prakash (Chandra Yadav Anandi Yadav, rio Subhas 4, PEPSI HES The State of Tharkhand through Principal Seeretary, Department of Home, s t 5 > ject Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi, PO and PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. The [Netrict Magistrate-curn-Deputy Commissioner, Sahibgan), PO and PSSahibgani, District-Sahibgan], Superintenden at of Police, Sahibganj, PO and PS-Sahibgani, District- PO and PS-Sahibgan}, .. Respondents Sahibganj, REE CHANDRAS ATNARER BHE: HON'BLE M al Kirti Singh, Advoca ial Choudhary, Ady ecare ua a Sahay, Advocate Appstant mMcent-Stais CLAY on 22/02/2023 Proncunced or 02/03/ 2023 This Letters Patent Appeal hax been filed by Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mongeri Yadav against whom an order of preventive detention under section 1201} & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 short, Comes Control Act} has been passed an 8" August 2022 by the ¥ District Magistrats of the district of Sahibgan. 2. By an order dated 2° November 2022, WPR¢Cr) No. 405 of fed by the detenu challenging the order of detention dated 8° August has been dismissed by the writ Court holding that. © all the representation of the detenu as enunciated in "Sayan raravan Sukul'! have Japoercowt Sade vo State of Peer & v} G en miade out, and be e ha oe fi aH x x e detail Hy $ u + : x .
Oo pen oak o rand ~ efeqrinan of d fourt has < Wit s, the rele "
& partie By of t LOFES PIT VTE Th xy Is.
v t at dstai Sats gre record mM ih eer Pads im ap as ~ os tp Panis' TORCH > ¥ re s&s followin tex in the Tat % iw 3} MA.
Mo .
@ Wri Faad ym pes i} *z a ase all the a TOS IES EP EH? Oe PAE ¢ t PRE PORSPEN Hoy P 3h SEE hefepe 3 fOHER ech PER ¢ be S Lae recsits gt rat 2023 ay we ¥ EER ' "eh nd rs been ted a3 22 a ae P20 Lary ot °% No Claas Las i X49 2 .
% om ~ 3 care aynd +o MM Neo HG a:
CG a re "ay [© March 2 of 20 .
ae ;
o cae ws 4 Sead on mor on * Es
-- if ele ie ope tod a vee BB ug ae vee we yf be EE Sg ramet Me, S a 3 A, iad free, rye 'sae ' 'wt ceed es .
A ace BB a ke oe ne mm Ort 'Ode n Penal C ig and 116 of the Ind .
x Let LPE No. S88 of 2025 the basis of the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Muffasi] PS, Sahibgan| hat there is an apprehension of breach of peace due to the dispute between the groups led by Prakash Chandra Yadav and Dahu Yadav. On "o 238 Ma ay 2022, the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj} issued an advisory to the Sub-Divisional Police CH¥icer, Inspector of Police and officer-in-charge of Ma uffasil PSJirwabari OP for keeping strict vigil in the area. The Superintendent af Police, Sahibgan} expressing an apprehension of breach of public order and peace has directed the aforementioned ollicers also to take peri ms measures agamset the persons who might cause disturbance of peace On 3° Aucust 2022, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sabibeanj transtt Nitted a repart to the Supe 1 intendes ut of Police, Sahibgani expressing an a apprehension ae Rased on the & eriais, the District dated 8" August 202 y.the detenu ix he Government on 12" Au Advisery Board dated ae September 2022 was accepted and the detention order has been confirmed by the State Government on 15% September 2022.
Ee x 3 he deteru has pleaded that his represertiation dated 18" August 2022 was duly received in the office of the Tailor but a decision thereon has been taken by the ® Principal * Secretary of Home, Government of Tharkhand only on Navember 2022, In the representation dated 18" August 2022, the detenu has seat ed that the detention order has been passed to wreck vengeance apon him because his son made a written complaint to the Director General Income-Tax (investigation) whereafter Income-Tasx Department and Directorate of Enforcement conducted raids and searches im the premises of Pankaj } Mishra, Dshu Yadav and their associates and seized Rs.1 1.88 crores from. 37 hank accounts and now Pankaj Mishra, Dahu Yadav and others have } & £24 Ne. 388 af) ~ y boon arrested for commission of the offence of money-laundering. Po Mr Vimal Kirti Singh, the learned counsel for the detenu has submitted that (1) one of the grounds of detention is ins valid, (i) there was no proximate and live ink between the offending acts alleged against the deteny, a} mers aporehension of release on bail cannot justify the order to detain the detenu preventively, and Gv} mala Ade in passing the order dated @* Aueust 2622 is quite apparent inasmuch as the rival gang leader has beer 3 3b lot aff Tt is submitied that the representation dated 18° August 2022 made by the detenu was considered affer a delay of SS days which has been sought to be justified by making a false statement before the Advisory Board, that no aN epresentati ion Was made.
preventis ertain persons. ~ (1) The of ta any person that wt anner prefulicial to) . js reason to fear that { be prevented otherwise tha an order directing that su
2. Power to make ore vernment TRAY, ie $2 a t 3 ye ENTE ite anii+ "social * hawiy preveuling 1g" or a Bikely .
onforred upon 6 Hed fn aR order na. bed the Stone ¢ Governr sent nt BM, "if scesaary sc to da, amend such order te ime by any period not exceeding three extend sue ch pet months af any one Lue, gy WW he any order ja made by District Magistrate, be shall forthwith report, the fact in the Stale Government tagsther with the x graumis oa which the order has been made and such other particulars as, i his 8 OPO, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall Say a uy in force lor more than days after the a akin ng Thereof unleas, neartime, Ho has been appraved by the State Government shere ander Sect ion i? ihe grounds of detention are sunmmancated by the afffcer making the order alter Sve days nu not later than fen dave from the date of detention, this Subs section shall apply subject fs BR ive days", the wens "Afteen d ig t2 a Be es wt & voce Cab a There is no doubt that it is competent to the Government of woe toe ten ye pond yytee Bebe a, Bar bcd Ch.
£2 an ?
peas xe, vat * 2 its powers through the District Magistrate to detain a public -order. Nowever, the ground of attack against the © preventive detention ar a ar breach of G) public order, and G1) law and order. Referrime to Dave! Deorah'S. the learned counse! for the deters has submitted that the held pivalid because ane of the detention order de ted 88 August 20 grounds mentioned in the detention order is "law and order", which definitely cannnt he the basis for passing an order of detention under section [2 of the pes "rimes Control Act.
and State Laws which oravide for the preventive detention order is made, more e th ar ane ground is construcd as peas < pom ped wut os 223 SSS Act, eS Ware drounds, such made separately on "@ invalid ar inoperative P} NOTRE NT SEH } non-refevant;
net cannected or not proximately conmecied with such
9) Oy} invalid for any 30 iO} and te iS TN therefore po ible te hold 1 that the Government of officer Mking id een Sa sisfied aa provided in section [2 with refer sronnd of groumds and made the order of detention. {ii} @) The Government ' shall be deemed ig have 3 pai ihe oa: der of dete emhion under the Ral section afier being satislied as provided in the section with reference to the remaining ground or grae ands, i Therefors, a detention order can be sustained so long as ons » on fF WMS gaPPt *s ° a: ve oo BRAY Ns L234 Ne. 368 of SRS valid groimd is found amongst the grounds mentioned in the order of
--
dete mation, Section [2-A of the Crimes Control Act provides that a detention x erder ig not void if ane or same of the grounds of detention are (1) vague, ap ROD-EX istent, (HJ) non-relevant, Gv} not connected, or (v) not proximately & ; 2 =e i :
eee ooN ANE ected with such person, ar (Vi) invalid for any other reason whatscever. x ¥ Furthermore, section 18 provides that the detention order shall not be mvalid or inoperative merely for the reason that the detenu ar the officer making the detention order is outside the limits of territorial jurisdiction of the State Csovernetient, or the place of detention of the detenu is gutside the said liniits. When such is the legislative fttention to save an order of preventive jon of the detenu. making an order of g author extracted y af Public Prosecutor he operative portion of i his satisfaction tha detention u deten detention is that all such materials on the basis of which the detaming ~ authority has recorded his satisfaction should be supplied to the detenu. The weer, apinton of the Public Prosecuter has ; been extracied in the detention order in our apiiion, complies with the requirements of natural justice Having carefully gone through the contents of the detenhon order dated ss August ¢ 2022, we do not find any such invalidity in the detention order as sought fo have been canvassed on behalf of the detenu. While recording our satistaction, we have this In cur mind that a document has te be read as a ards ot 'shou! a be read the whole attempt of the detenu to challenge the det tention order having been made on an invalid ground turns out to be a failed attempt. iy Al SO WS OSE : ft N en S&S of i4, Mr. Vimal Ruri Singh, the learned counsel for the deter has contended that unmindful of the legal requirements under section 12¢1) of the € rime « Control Act the District Magistrate, Sahibgan} has passed the detention order dated 8° last August 2022 as there is no five fink with the tengo reported offending act of the detenu, and the allegation of harassing Paharia tribes has no factual foundation. Peaeat Ls a The detena is a habitual oNender agaist whom several criminal cases have been lodged. The expression "anti-social element' has heen iY dah ned ander section 2(d} of the Crimes Contral Act. If provides that "ant- social element' is the person whe either by himself or as a member of or or attempts to commit or abets ths leader of a gang habitually commits estrarnt, wrongful : ment, criminal ying, abduction, kidnangek om etc, Suma aocHly c oniro Aeravhich defines "anti- social < re oy Sid} "Ant-soctal element" meana a person who- if either by himisel! or as a ober of cr leader of a gang, habnually COMINIS Hempts sto CORRE ar abots the conmmassion of offences mar AVE or Chapter NYU of the Indian Penal oy abets the conanission of afenees under the Praffic in Women and Girls Act, 1986:
Gis who by words or otherwise pronuites or atiemys in prevriede, grourds of region, race. Iamgnage, casie or conrenunity or Ws i 'ty or hatred bebween di STCUIPS OF CASTES OF CONUIERMHES. OF auporesaion af rarmoaral © BR wg ferent Pesgte Aw Bes Ne $.
mons, racial © ey has been fournl nabiny 3a uy passing imiecent remarks to, or teasing women or giriss ar fas xe egtsred {v} who h as been cerrvicted PAG.
ames EeY Sections 2 rs ee At Se EAE if? £24 Na. S68 af S002 " "eM. ot tw xe oh, 2 wg bd ice ive The ward "habitual? finds &s origin in the Latin Aabrieclis peed ay which means habit and is generally use dt signily doing of something very often, Therefore, the expression habitual connotes repetition, and a habitual offender is a person who is a criminal by habit or by disposition formed by repetition of crimes'. In the preventive detention order, the District Magistrate has referred ta the cases registered against the detenu betweer 2014 to 2022. The cases registered against the detenu pertain to the years 2008, 2O14, DOL, 2OL8, 2OL8, FORO, QOS and 2022. The detenu whe seems to enter the crime world in 20174 or even before that has at least 23 criminal eases to his credit, many of which relate to commission of the crimes under Chapter AV] and Chapter XV un ol the Indian Penal Code and several others for Hlegal ¢ CANTER SSIOS rh aN wg iv ace of the complaints ; bebvean the 90 ths SAU sect ve satisfaction sufficient grounds ts pass the order of detention. The LE BC;
aes g wre a uF .o) Rea CE ma Le £8 oy o i, pattern af crimes committed by the defenu over a period of time and other rials on reeard provide clear indication to the pawer and control which he wields | in the area. The apprehensions of the Sub-Divisional Police Offiver and Superintendent of Police that there is an imeainent threat of breach af public order and law and order seem to be real and not imaginary. ver a breach af law and order in the situafian portrayed' by the respondents cx have serious conse quences on the daily lle of the people. In "dnuamusia y Bachan the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a vielation of any ordinary legal provision may become a matter of public order inasmuch as itis the magnitude of the offending activity and its effect ed 2 a a :
oe, wt 43 , ak ed SS ' yet es, Ty. tne Eoae' we Ca: Poze % fost ". wet Fos - "and ps $3 7 xe' ans om ene coved, ron Ao pas " ' me apt s re ce ow pe wer ey 3 42 pat tua ices feel poe) 'nhoods nw A, honk yee A m ' on we cS yh yee, ' tore ay 7, th ond ate pa a a : oe feos . Laie : wre bok 2 bee awd aS wear' fod , igh. ¢ we. " Lt eee ew, r pa oes i 'eu on ae 43 os, ' poe an nnn eg ve a phot Sed ae pon " $ ve on ot we ; La ed Seanad es . acs ws vetoes ny tab on sed papeed Faeots ay ' ¢ sod. y o ee te yok i, YM vee ee, eed Pan a a4 dm 4 Soy 5 we ; ot sy; CA as we , hoot rd ve ww Bs 'i os e. oo heads :
mR OS ye te A B® od ee s ¢ 4 . wa Dea Del wens a fe id . fu OE Bs iat ~ ig yy, 1d = ae a - 3 iad oS ~e wo A ry we a ine we a3 5 ne pees 43 A Lh Paved oe whet cheek het! Ps owes tends a BS Ss hod bco4 aA . aoaewe Pi rial Oo tad oo, WY "Soot ra , "ee . hat yo "f bend pores, 7 Sant vapors 4, 7 "s ~ ee % «een, * fen 2% ME ay Ay i rn 5 - 2a fon RS weet os er * eens ' nad Z oe Ld ", joes fea tee ay es a8 ston Pod Vi ; % re 43 Sox y . os i} +"? mn q ab Ce Pa 43 toot . heal "ey ame: : Co x 43 ta tn Rah om 49 . pees Sy aa a ied "ae ee f Bal Fp: bodes ' Lo 'sah eer anu * wa pa pant pet a bets whos when ry, reds 4 a pod os ae ae Peal me x pee "wr ares, ny poe) bans ws pot A 4 aod A ne Los et ipad we ~~ 4, ae . nS ed cad m ed vm gee. 43 ay ot , trey ato oOo ae . we sn rs . Cs "hh oon x my Ce ge rae Ps fost a re 43 " 7 feces tes = Me ' 'vat we pam es a "wt In can pee oA 23 Ay as St " 4 we ae te Te pee eG wm om SS me he ° ms be OS bid oR ih gy rf os gen hy " prod, on w ~ caved mee oe fod Pa oy Oe
3 z o . pes 2 a wes owen f baad pond to ow, we : we ~ seek 7 mee nek, oo cheek oA) nodes, Sows m4 i be oe OSS 5 hy wbori pos peed %: ; nen tae mh 2 a Set Bw ian . eed "3S Se wid OS pans a Ns Cs 4 mm Fee i a "a Pe: a o wet Peg = oS fe >» pod LD oO x "ee ay es gee wheod a) yoo, 4 . ced ay ms ies oom Ooty = YB ~~ ft & ag oS he ae er gy oa ee Go 8.2 wt To aed ee oe sy, Fath Gor cd ae Co pone ied a oy ae okt Be " as " en beet ts ws hd ie] Foal wok Nat pee r ~ fa' as' Sica So : wees ane oduct at ¢ fetes weed, oy a then Makes * ran De Yea des ae oo oS oe soe 2 Mu "eed he es & *y eed " ye Es 3 , , $ 2 a , : 4 'eet ' en ON ad one a ren we, ot bon aie, ro iw, 43 fea es cox! om a ome we whos wet Ba oy neod itt + ed, wees Dead eed a 8 AG gece Sh ge Bel oe" a goo oe oA ~~ % ' ie aed a3 ro os Sino bse] Fired were OR tee ent eg pe ua ve bea 'hpod Bp ge Ga H "7 wrdooe nd ie 7 on cs wa Si MAM AM i on oA; yee, ¥ ened, pot " brad woos fan . yor we Coot x a aOR weds Za ra ren heed aod t ead eaaed band ene neon " £ : nee ay oy von Sows ay seen, ' tl on ye ig pees a7 ren 253 te te pad wank ros Eerie 'deed Reaal pees; vieed, -- seed ns oe 4 "aban, Pat ras a pes 4 teres, tof ae 7 ' eed eon, ty en rae ae Got ans a et ied eed « aed "spark ~ 3 pa Ls ' 2 OES ry * tS beet ira Lad mn, fon Sy x aad ° , os we ent a i A nd me 2 Ree g ra oS a3 get wet Sen adh vw wet : poss ue No" Ga we weed, ko BS 4 os spans peat xy ee Noes tat mo et a et nee 98 a3 pee ae era pes % 2 wee Eten o~ Loreen 4 % 3 Ss = ot Rees' ao a tes wens 3h, MER Aeed Sree s 6 end, win, ee, Mie ws, Bee ke oe my oS ee € rs nok 2 a3 uA wy are 63 nye ae oat wy ae oa 43 intek we nes pa oe ae % Ye Bp ee Lae 4 ra em " ad i, bak om Son Joe a Sy 5 G pal 4 pam is oS Bog tee a3 GA "oe ° Far we ES 4 ms Go Be es tz ap nowt ie A oa bs tock na " teed mS BOE Ys on wer eed f Ls ye oe eet toe % ty . De ax 'oot vot oe mabe 43 me 2 aA pod a " 2 ial L. a ¢ arlene "4 re 4 s ms and oa a lool <n oe, dina ap tt pon es 83 ta :
ond oi on + ad od ee "etek Ss Ly grat y F . Cet % 64 cord e. a3 eae pad 23 ig % ¢ BS a oA are i w Se Te ted ae wea , oe 2 anes aed sch we vans an oes pee Minow a5 popea ren ws os en eeeed, nee oy ee, vt ey raped x, wee wen 4. poets as ag eee axe ng ~ iad ns Ca ead a pars eet ft on yeodd reed, oR whoo at "does ' Lo paok ves th a rege anotor thy 43 puna how rhs cone cas o get SF Poa ca « re a wz nye P28 me oh pet coal aved yn 5 we a4 we sree era weed, "2 4p can xs, bod EAS 'nd é Poa 4 ry a oa] os tree Pad ape 7 Pi enw ged, £75 abe, $y ifs Newer "4 eet . . sf 2 pa fon ws aA pow ind ee nee ws ; sree nae ee ¢ pen on Canes Seve none chest fe be an F saeed ee wa we woo, ee ; es eT we x3 ond a noe! a Goa "
tt im a3 Cd i Deba oA 4 ad ae yes ye i om ren Of Os we 4 oe "3 Pcs 7; on te wn, . cae Wipes tok pra on, 6 tees a py, 'eat 4, neporl pond fed rnb? spe ang or . cas Le "4 Pals 5 E tel oon pet ot pod, tee wee Lf pc ep ay ~~ oH a4 xe] tend ; bok oA om Sod aed cab nod one 2 my $3 43 m ont ry feed Ys ae tea 4 coe me os % ib Keen oe Fie pe o ; wet pod om oo bea my on Py EE cs Ps eae rea "3 a pee wt tet go a po as ne ie Fad 2 S by om OS OS "
ae oS we wy "A mm eo jptied rere ye qahoe, et im aN pa " wee aA oo, ye 'a on, vy "boot a, 7 72 Ae wo Pad at phewe , Poa om SB yee m wee Pr, eed aed ie & tek 23 oh peed 'ee : we LP Ce seed Sexe x. 2 ae ' aa tS Nn ' aaa fh reed on, wo to itt eyed th 5 ' pees : aed hh wae "so wv ra, ~ bodes ye Ld . fone g cre owed ea' A ees aa LS tee me peer heey nes ' . ays "SE fog L% be ae A oa he 73% vo BB. oS we me "ed 'eat % aaeed ie £% ae ad poe fr PA on os w pen ' f oy pas hens wee a5 Oy Bey yey, opens x noe, Lars fone tet ia a Ka nln os 4 ed sal pee "Eh we oe * pe E re ae ae A Neen td Pees Sens " we ee g pe, j a ge ft ; 5M, Ne tae xd ei phd é % ye, be, "ng ped Pi 7 yn yeeee, ay ne nO wena ay ae "ge A ee mgt "ten ae a3 ; ag 78 Teng inp "f aes oe 4 hoa oe eg a ad i: ae ee BO 8 BR os ih 88 . B&B oe se ee abet ced aetees wee PFS RS CAO LP NO OS 03 A) The learned counsel for the detenu has submitted that the powers of preventive detention should not be exercised where the defen is in CHINE ody and there is no imminent possibiligy of his being released on bail. But this srepositicen has limited application and cannot be applied in cases wher et ihe detaining authority has recorded his satisfaction that once released an hail the defenu may again indulge in prepudicial activities. The Central slations such as the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, the Terreriat and Disn uptive Activities (Prevention) Act ete. and the State Legisiations for preventive detention are manifestations of the need fo provides powers even to the ferent of interfering W ab the iizen's most cherished rights of person and ay bs a serious deragatio: esponsibility of the © we its padement for the : n of the executive author end, underiake an invs LOW to prevent the dete sou foiirabat sprNdigial 2 activity j in Aature, if is difficult to accept the contention of the detenu that there was no commpe}lling necessity to detain him preventively and, more 9a, because there are adequate measures ander the general criminal laws te deal with the situation apprehended by the detaining authority. ai. The main plank of the detenu is that his representation dated ® August 2022 has been decided afler an inordinate delay of 85 days and thereby causing serious infraction of his constitutional nights guaranteed under clauses () and (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The learned course! for the detenu has submitted that irrespective of enormity and the allegations made against the detenu any violation of the deter in disposal of his representation at the Liat we est would make the order of detention idegal. Criticizing the writ Court's wy wee a order, the learned counsel for the detena has submitted that there is no lime- line for the making of representation by the detena and, the constitutional right of the detenu that his representation must be decided with reasonable expedition does not extinguish even if he submits the representation 10 days alter the det detention order was passed. It is submitted that not only furnishing the grounds s of detention within the statulory period but also a decisian on the detenn's representation with prometitude and without any delay emanate from Article 22. The learned counse! for the detenu has heavily relied on the £8 where unexplained delay aismitling the « continued exssunsel for esentalion Ww OLE detention gces hack ents in Madras and Bamibay.
HeaASLTE ia orevent Parliament enacted the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939 under which the Reguistions providing for preventive detention were made, The Defence iG FeNer al} Regulations, 1939, a war tire measure, which was upheld by t Neuse of Lords!' seems to have been extended in Indis through the Defence at India Act, 1938, Even after World War Ul, large scale disturbances and subversive activites by the an{i-social elements endangering normal ile i, eomtinued and the situation had worsened afler partition of the country which saw mindless cormmunal viclence and anti-national and subversive forces threatening the national security which prompted the Law Makers to make lows fier preventive detention in normal times. The notable State Legislations Beas (£808) FOC 10d 4 E24 Na, 308 of were UP Goondas Aot: C.P and Berar Goondas Act; Madhya Pradesh Public Security Ast: LEP Prevention of Crimes (Special Powers} (Temmorary) Act ete. Under the Constitution of India, there is Entry 9 in List ] which empowers the Central Government and Entry 3 in List LI of Schedule VU hich empawers the Central and State Legislatures to make laws for prey enti ve detention in normal times. The Preventive Detention Act, 1050 which WHS enacted as a temporary measure for one year was extended tll i pired at the enc of 1969, Then came the Maintenance of Internal Security Act "197L which was repealed in 1977; the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 was repealed in 1994 anc: the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 was » repealed: in 2004, Even today, the following Central laws Substance Act, ; addition ta these es have legislated 21 3, | The fat amers of thes Constitution "had visuali zed misuse of the DENY: er of preventive detention and therefore thought i necessary fo make the powe a af preventive detention subject to certam constitutional safeguards > upon the violation of which the individual can approach the Court. The intention of the Parliament io authorize the abrogation of the [berty of a person at the discretion of the Central/State Government is implicit in Aru icle ae Of the Constitution. While moving Article 15-A, which is the aey pre ssent Article 22 in the Constitution, before the Constituent Assembly, iy. B. R. Ambedkar has made the following remarks:
Sye 6 iy Raw ver ae mx HY BUS PO Be ; vay fhe couatey, i may be :
ance Mm PwWHO AUBper Dns her 2 te oyanedesaes asaya tty } WH NEC QPUER GS pRERTONee PRE .
ik Ssaearrer: Fee oP ey oe eye boyy fe three be ae e Ser i ree ¥ af Te ¢ SOUNEPY, IF sueh a ease J de net think ther Me dey ehedeege iberty of the individual should be wlaced above the cree wie?
wt & ev on, .:
ON of p mont within $ LEA No. $68 of WW cond shake cuyed t& ction of ud N erg "
GE PONY Bact 'fn cases where the 2 bass Ww fe f erry f aon?
Ae prot FS Ls he Cravernnwkear she :
oY the order OEE 3 Act fF £ £ LOM O ns a chien 12, s x
7. ¢ uy execed (ree OF & Fe mUPENAGEP Bo defen AMY STLQYPer little ORNEY Cortes! nye RE Ceerers r OU! pared fail Oy "~s Pack a 42 M wt ited tees oa whey, age bond CORR BWIRES Ns x.
tt oy Y Par ose phe. F ee HOMERS 2 aa) x BS ai fas + ?
} i ug BPOVTOaS OF OLY & He By me a "SONS x N x x % On 2 ne ant t anda af detent = x Be Pd $
2. . . teh? de eh WEFRO? PE i so af gubhe arde ade by the Dds eos wanes Scion ot .3 detention ~ & < 2 or the date j POY § d a 107, ay he ¢ ta nary by fo Hi t ¥ y oR, der has fore the ~ is on he matter bef .
.
~ ;7 ae VENTA OF Ey £ afford the deteru GY PSASONS ste of deter
-< ~ Q cated tn the detenu xd wa. The x A "
ay be burt ord Q m OS 2 against the arder to the ni agy it » fram the d er a duty t detent tS 4 URE i M i QS SCHSR as 5 N 3 2 A x My & SMnAment si YoOES y fy sha « YO} vion ghuist be commu PS * y ty the date a t TOY of dete ier foH fe & 3 } i 10 days i a Pena poe & Ra = 3F yng auil x me e grounds * ; re rH uy ¥ ee) ¢ x jat the St on oF PEER z } ig t n i The det hat ih St Oppo ES tet eh hes Coal Pan' a3 oa @ i6 Advisory Board, which would include the grounds on which the detention order has been made, representation af the detenu and the report hy the District Magistrate as mentioned in sub-sectian 2 of section 12 and the report bry "gute sh officer under sub-section 3. The Advisory Board is required to render 1S apinion within 7 weeks from the date of the detention afler bearing the detenu in persan if the Advisory Board considered if essential so co do or the detenu desired to be heard. The significance of the opinion raulered by the Advisory Board is to the effect that if the Advisary Board has reported that there is no sufficient cwuse for the detention of a person the State Cony ernment shall revoke the detention order under sub-section 2 of section 21 and cause the perst SON OGRE emed: to > be released forthwith.
38. + which are relevant for the pt sd ctained in put order shall, 1, as Spans dave othe order ~ (1) ¥ an BO rile, the auth the ree on which the order nas h ty of making ¢ } Nothing in sub-s owhich H cansiders othe = pub ie interest ernment may atefition of the person mcerned Lor suck pero KS (23 In ary ease where the : Advisory f Board | has reported that there is, hy iis opmion, mo onffielent cause for the detention of a person, the Government shall reveke the detention ander and canse the person concerned to be released forthwith.
26. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the procedure prescribed under the Crimes Cortral Act has been followed and there was no delay in consideration of the determ's representation by the Home Secretary. it is submitted that the detention order dated 8° August 2022 was confirmed by the Government an 12" August 2022 and the Advisory Board rendered # opinion on 2° September 2022 that detention of the detenu should be continued, By that time, the representation of the detenu was not recerved in the office of the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and the sare was received only on 31% Qetober 2022 which was considered by him within "Javanaravan Sukul"
» S un = ~ ine we * Ader 3 & the detenu as i cs esentation af ».
& 10 rep §.
& sees inte} "Po fh OE ated the 4-p he enunel iples relating va me .
ts Aree wae oe a ey id of see Re tov ns Pay ony we ot Stee ited 23 ne bees hoard "pe "S vest "4 en toes Wat we oe ots re PP OC x 3 ry vise i SRE z re we Ps.
aes ois ive Mart ro fon.
?
& widerat en, vo e e PUVEFAGRC os iegation af hemos x af rat tf y ott 4 * we oS eo ~s Oe me OEE bs Me KE oa x Paes ed can ¢ Se oR ay the sheet : ke ko «eee = , e h MIS PART hee. & Be, 1% ieee > * Seal me ae ° Y IM ie od 4 hed ia ad fon ne TA oe x, "iS ns ome ar) nc id *s Seen, oS Nw oy epee, we Bass eng ee oe ea iad ce a ors gn "ee tee ES > BY hod ee gen le 4 oe we att ye ee A oreees wy Eco eh acd § IQH at:
CPU ty » ¥ x x wat q i text aut make 3 re f a person stentian ¥ representation 0 fo preventive d h ti words, the s j .
§ where t a % x Ny t x .
= a sat ation. In pla
2.
entive dete
-.
OSA ww s t x acts) ai ~ Tl rent { sh a pee OPrey . R mg uk .
od £ 2] Pp the m ders were rag oe ina oa t 4 nd & a on tt fe x x x x Hy S ie a POPETLE:
~ e as clearly inf s re x at the detenu w ted th t t to YH Sut yEk he ke eri bat ial HE + WOON us * AY ht the Js x a lor i he Be * grver to ft ¥ i .
Senralian ok A! sf Re :
S$ PYOGLE <3 a Poot Rees Eee alleged .
a.
Pthe rep ¥o ad 8 oop ig ' ALIONS RY hind the Central Legisl ae Se CHE b RS Act he é & ral Basse i eg € ts LEA No. S68 of 2085 true that a * Iegal Provision is interpreted ina pre sematic rather than pedantic behind an enactment has to be kept In mind to discern ratio Pot the fudement. Lond Macmillan' has observed that if is right so > -- xe OEE ce meek ox ex Se aan pane Ne cS are ~ at. San ig Interpret emergency legisiatinn as to promote rather than to deleat is efficacy for the defence of the realms. The Preamble to CCOFEPOSA recites : wn that this Act is to erovide for preventive detention in certain cases for at Peae pot Le garposes of conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities and for matters connected thenovith. There Tas eSpR esaian used i section B is appropriate Govermment which shall be C ent 1 Government ar State Govern ut . #8 the case may be. Similarly, the By revention af Bl detained ¢ vation of Foreien Exch: 'sevention of Smuggling "et au was lef unattends _ had failed to offer any RAGE submitted hisare tation 4 . defention ofder 2 mong the Jallor in jall under section 222} af the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, (980. He was the owner of a godown where four barrels of kerosenc-ail were found loaded on an suto-rickshaw. These cases had peouliar features and the detention orders were passed with different objects in mind. These judgments provi ide valuable insight to the High Coerts in dealing with the cases of eg ve preventive detention and can be apglied in a particular case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case, bul not im every case. Even in ?
S Palio themed Rosdadecs x . yf : ~ ee as Py ayet han headed Asign Abed Zalire Ahmed Skaik'' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held x 4 that ei is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any rigid period of time uniforn nly applicable tp all cases whhin which period the representahan of deten has to be disposed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that what 19 iBa No. Séa ef 2022 ~~ would be the reasonable time for disposing of the representation nvust necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 30, On behalf of the State of Jharkhand, a controversy has been raised ag regards making of the representation by the detenu on 18" August 2022, The respondents have stated in the counter-affidavit that the representation of the detenu was received in the Home Department for the first time on 31" October 2022 through e-mail at O1:52 PM. According ta the re respondents, the delay in forwarding the representation dated 18° August 2022 ta the Department of Home was a handiwork of the detenu himself. The representation of the detenu sent through e-mail to the Inspector General (Prisons} was me dehy exe dd as. the nussicn report indicates, The * respondents bay amuch as thers is a mismatel dhary by afixing af ip of the Jallor whe Jadlor-In-Charee bod representation by ins by hand. The learned: i has submitted that the objection to ing of J ease and WLP. (Cry No S6 af 2026 } No. ]36 of 2020 has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin SL. BUCr) Na24l of 2023. Another objection taken by the respordents is that the order dated 12° August 2022 passed by the State Government whereby the detention order hag been approved by the Mtate Government is not under challenge, and the order rejecting the represerrtation of the detenu has alse not been challenged in the present proceeding. Cin the other hand, the leamed cenmsel for the detenu has & x submitted that any doubt which prevailed in the minds of the writ Court whether or not the representation was submitted by the detenu now stands clarified by the Stste of Jharkhand itself which has admitted receipt of the representation dated 18° August 2022 by the Jail. [t is submitted that the tstenu could have submitted his representation through the Jailor only and that he did on 18" Auguat 2022. While this may be correct to say that the . are fs LEA No 368 of S022 representation of the detenu is dated 18" August 2022, he has failed to explai n how he could file a different copy of his representation in the present at * proceed ing which bears endorsement of the Jailor, unlike the one filed belore the writ Court. In view of the stand taken by the State of Iharkhand, the Jailor and the Inspector General (Prisons) who only could have explained the circumstances surrounding the controversy were not made parties before the WI HC 'ourt. This is so necessary also for the reason that the State of Iharkhand has aaserte «(that Me. Manoj Murmu was the Jailor-In-Charge on [8° August 2022. The detenu has claimed that he is a renowned businessman since last od.
BOVE on al years, engaged in stenc and mining business and has been Ming huge income fax returns. The representation dated {8" August 2OZ2 refers to s ; udgments af the | authority y % x law. ES SP € S HOTEL that the delay in disposal of his is sarned counsel for - the detema basta stress on PP Sharsiuy" ~ thai the preventive detention order is actuated with mala fide inasmuch as the detaining authority acted with oblique or improper mustrve for ulterior purpose and the said carder has heen passed in bad faith. Ht is submitted that the detention order has been used as a weapon of persecution to silence the rebellious voice of the detene and his son who made complaints to the goverment authorities, which led to raids at several places belonging ts Pankal Mishra, Dahu Yadav and their associates. Before the writ Court, the 7* Getenu has produced a copy of the complaint made by his son te the Director Ge ane ral of Income Tax (Investigation), Patna dated JO! March 2022, a copy of th 1 suramorns dated 3° June 2022 issued to his son by the Enforcement Direete yrate, press S® Toly 2022 and 278 Faby 2022 by the are TY a Rat es Nw rit 2 Es mee thee ate Hie x > x ate to substant ra ae OH pat a 2 A tes Mite ned, fn, Srvc, t S nst any authori v © x 4 Vy wens eed "Ons arg "KS aks eee, iS ve ins ers a, "ne , gn me Sek, net pees onnd, oy my ae 4 Sad Eerod ot ven OS Coed nt ace bales .
we Pee nai * aed % ne i Saad enpen as oe;
, alata 'eeewi on * re wes ae ye os aS * nees paid eet pos Y g » k Q ve weheee assing the aos wae for} ority S ees mn daw OAIESERTELELUIS MERE, 8 @ Pr
2. ~ There cHindation in tt A sefual f Pee by laying f eer ved wget eS " hed B&B % Saas aad cea wn me s a ws e x oe front, » L. . 'bend mw OS wet ated vee, peat The D ~ "
< in good f ' roving Oo & B 4d eed, wa pes , °"% +7 See yer ee tee, ed vs wie pa o tes ced eth -
acd pre ren, Ort, rm "
veoh re 4, me ee S @ Wk aa meg os rst cd tan ta Mo pe Kw :
va aaa web eek, ies feet bad 4 we i" et as Poe or wa! ar) "oe z a ay yee er ¥ we tos wo oy od ve rete 4 ae eet ran wn ete, ad ht a that th legally, bend et, v4, a a choot 23 a :
4 a4 "en wd thy ' ears G 5 * veer : hans ee 3 ty foe yet eat ES fee et ae wt a r and comvincing evider XN rn detention J whereve a, sy he pad "
¥: &, a wy a3 4 des tes Sanne id «ro ~ pa mS
- . i pales & %G Pe .
ee ty rt ap nt Son eed ot "e Ls wn ne 4, eo? r™ bei Ts) ater bi 7 hens ist ied SS fey 4 won hoot '7 : Ke y Page' wo co aa:
wend, ; thes, bo es? So : Sey le ei ree hte Het or, een ne eek z oS i ny 'So ao nnd COMPS fusion about t $ eee mst the » y z 3 aga eatian Hy 34, bia £ a RR rder i .
SISO OY the d rey see Sat ceo istrake af £ yee oy poe fae w wo OS toad % 4 ows "
BAe ie Ce Kal Fo a an?
te , ae -, LB ishy Feel .
Dead er 23 von se oes 5g np zs apadiy that the x 3 a Ry ES 2 Laws ees, 7% 'of od oo reed ma "y ae Co ox ioe een foot Wen os aerses Seeker wer be i siaig Fide Were tO i os ae mae he "
"OS SB f ees ered tes : ies ae Oe gee Hone fet'y £ bar TAS a a Be Ek Feet pene a mee eee, ners t bane leew 4 "pet 2 ieee $ "eed fy , A eae, * red ae, " oo * we St tnd reed yeeed, banc' 2 ed ce 'nee mm spe om re te a Pao > Paes ee' sho peree Sd fee} on wee # "3 te re "h x feet pala beaded, wei, net fh ee oes ae et eet te bee oe oe gr £3 43 nes eoreid "he > bag wage aba Gre te tha yi seied Sy as be Srna aoe x 5a LEE No. S88 of 2028 Superinte endent of Police who made a recommendation for detaining the detema preventively is not a party-respondent and there is no allegation of mala fide against this officer of making a recommendation against the detenu m bad faith.
38. The writ Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution shall net embark upon a faet-dinding roving enquiry. Necessarily, the writ Court is required to adjudicate the matter on the b: Asis of the indisputed facts and evidences laid by the parties. Equally true, this Court in exercise of the powers under the Letters Patent cannat go beyond what the writ c ourt could have done and, moreover, if is not every error in law or of fact which wuld warrant interfere see by the Letters Patent Court fo the writ 3 c ANUS daaisi 22 is dismiss L agree Sali Sl/- (Shree Chandrashekhar, J tatnaker Bhengra, J) Sdi-