Jharkhand High Court
Babloo Singh Alias Brajendra Kumar ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 3 April, 2002
Author: Deoki Nandan Prasad
Bench: Deoki Nandan Prasad
ORDER Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.
1. By order dated 8.1.2002, this matter was listed under the heading "For Orders" but for final disposal. Counter-affidavits have also been filed by the respondents and as such, the matter was heard and is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
2. This application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas-corpus challenging the validity of the detention of the petitioner in Daltonganj Jail, by which the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj passed the order of detention and the said order was confirmed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. It is stated that the petitioner was in custody in Sadar P.S. Case No. 437/2000 under Sections 384, 385, 386 and 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Superintendent of Police, Palamau. submitted a report along with charge sheet before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, requesting him to pass an order of detention under Section 12 (2) of the Act and in the said report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police made a reference about the cases of Sadar P.S. Case No. 412/2000 registered under Sections 341, 342, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Sadar P.S. Case No. 434/2000 under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and Sadar P.S. Case No. 437/2000 under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He also referred as regards to the cases of Sadar P.S. Case No. 381/91 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act; Sadar P.S. Case No. 327/96 under Sections 147, 148, 353, 448, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sadar P.S. Case No. 282/1998 under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau on receipt of the report registered a case being Case No. 1 of 2001-2002 under Section 12(2) of the Act and after going through the records passed the order of detention dated 3.7.2001. Thereafter the Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Home (respondent No. 2) confirmed the order of detention, hence this application.
4. On the other hand, counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents claiming therein that the Deputy Commissioner. Palamau (respondent No. 3) passed the order impugned correctly after being satisfied about the criminal activity of the petitioner who is said to be the veteran criminal of the area and he used to collect money from different persons especially who are the businessmen on threat. It is also alleged that in one case, the Court below acquitted the petitioner due to nonavailability of the evidence in the Court and no body was ready to depose in Court against the petitioner. The grounds on which the detention order was passed is perfectly correct as the petitioner used to collect money from businessmen on threat and the order of the Deputy Commissioner was also confirmed by the Home Department as well as by the Advisory Board. It is wrong to say that he is an active political worker of BJP rather his father is also involved in so many criminal cases. The petitioner is a habitual offender and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The case lying with Sadar PS Case No. 581/91 does not form part of the ground of detention but it merely forms a criminal history of the petitioner and there is no illegality in the order impugned and as such, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner. Palamau Committed error in passing the detention order without any cogent material as the petitioner has already been acquitted in Sadar PS Case No. 581 of 1991 (S.T. Case No. 213 of 1993) by judgment dated 20.4.1995 but even though the said case has been mentioned as being one of the grounds for the detention of the petitioner which clearly indicates that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, did not apply his judicial mind. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already been granted bail in all other cases mentioning to be the grounds of detention. It is also argued that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, passed the order impugned on 3.7.2001 about the detention of the petitioner which was confirmed by the Home Department on 11.7.2001 and the representation was filed by the petitioner for consideration on 24.7.2001 which was rejected but the rejection of the representation was communicated to the petitioner on 7.8.2001 and there is no cogent explanation about such delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation and for which the detention order is fit to be quashed, It is further argued that the petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board and admitted in the supplementary affidavit that the order of the Advisory Board vide its Order No. 10/(sic) AP-1020/2001-1921 dated 16th August. 2001 was communicated to the petitioner on 3.9.2001.
6. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the cases of vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bibar and others. AIR 1984 SC 1334, Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah and others. AIR 1986 SC 315 and Raj Kumar Gupta v. The State of Bihar and others, 1990 PLJR (FB) 69.
7. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, learned Standing Counsel No. II contended before me that there is no illegality in the order impugned as the Deputy Commissioner Palamau. after being satisfied from the notorious criminality of the petitioner, particularly in the matter of collecting money as Rangdari from the businessmen on threat, passed the order of detention against the petitioner to maintain public order for the period under detention. It is further argued that Sadar P.S. Case No. 581 of 1991 was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act (S.T. No. 213/93) but the petitioner was acquitted only because of the fact that none of the witnesses supported the prosecution case because of terrorism on the part of the petitioner though there was direct allegation in the first information report against the petitioner for killing the deceased by fire arm which will be evident itself from the case of the prosecution as indicated in paragraph 4 of the Judgment. It is further submitted that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is based on specific and cogent reasons which was duly confirmed by the Home Department and it was also held to be valid by the Advisory Board.
8. [t was contended vehemently by the Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the order of detention is bad if one of the grounds on which the order of detaining authority is based is vague and non est. The main contention was in respect of the case of Sadar P.S. Case No. 581 of 1991 (Sessions Trial Case No. 213 of 1993) in which the petitioner was acquitted as back as in the year 1995, but obviously the said case ended in acquittal in absence of the evidence as none of the witnesses supported the prosecution case, but from perusal of the first information report, it appears that there was specific and direct allegation against the petitioner causing fire arm injury resulting the death of the deceased (Pramod Kumar). The trial Court has not held that the allegation is false. The fact of the instant case is also quite distinguishable from the facts of the above cited cases. In that view of the matter, the contention of Mr. Sinha, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on this score has got no substance. Moreover discharge or acquittal of the accused in a criminal prosecution does not stand as a bar of his detention under the preventive law.
9. From going through the grounds on the basis of which the detaining authority passed the order impugned for detention of the petitioner, it is apparent that the order impugned was based on the fact that the petitioner being a veteran criminal was directly involved/indulged in collecting Rangdari Tax from the business community by putting in fear of death or grievous hurt.
10. The detaining authority alone is to evaluate the materials placed before it to reach a conclusion that it is expedient in the interest of maintenance of public order that the person concerned be detained. The satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective one.
11. By going through the record, the detaining authority passed the order impugned after being satisfied and the order is based on the ground of collecting Rangdari Tax from the business communities and due to the criminal activity of this petitioner, they also feel unsafe. It further indicates that the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Palamau was also confirmed by the Home Department of the State.
12. The representation which was filed by the petitioner was also rejected and the order of rejection was communicated to him. The Advisory Board after considering the entire records also held the order impugned to be legal. Thus from the above facts and the materials available on the records, it is evi-
dent that, the activities of the petitioner have been found to have gravely affected the public order, as a result of which, the order impugned, in my view, cannot be held to be illegal.
13. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application which is. accordingly, dis missed.