Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pura Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 5 July, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:28591-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 369/2023
Pura Ram, Dangiawas, P.S. Dangiawas District Jodhpur At
Present Confined In High Security Jail Ajmer Through Raju S/o
Shri Bhiya Ram, By Caste Jat, Aged 28 Years, Resident Of
Dangiawas, P.S. Dangiawas District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy Commissioner Of Police, East Jodhpur
3. Superintendent, High Security Jail, Ajmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Khilery
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 05/07/2024 Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant Habeas Corpus Petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:
(i) the impugned order of detention dated 08.08.2023 (Ann.1) and 11.10.2023 (Ann.3) passed by respondent no.1 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to release to the brother of the petitioner Pura Ram forthwith from the detention.
(Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:03:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:28591-DB] (2 of 8) [HC-369/2023]
(iii) The respondents may kindly be directed not to interfere in peaceful life and liberty of the brother of the petitioner Pura Ram.
(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent no.2- Deputy Commissioner of Police (East), Jodhpur made a proposal for detention of the detenue i.e. Pura Ram s/o Bhiya Ram (who is before this Court through his brother Raju s/o Bhiya Ram) under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1988') before the respondent no.1-State on the ground that the detenue was having a criminal history, since the year 2011.
2.1. The first case pertains to the year 2011 in connection with the recovery of contraband (poppy straw) weighing 257.100 Kgs., wherein FIR No. 131/2011 dated 28.05.2011 was registered at Police Station Sendra, District Pali under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. Another FIR No. 105/2022 dated 15.06.2022 was registered at Police Station Dangiyawas, Jodhpur under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act in connection with recovery of contraband (MDMA) weighing 120 gms. Yet another FIR No. 34/2023 was registered at Police Station Dangiyawas, Jodhpur under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act in connection with recovery of contraband (poppy straw) weighing 11 Kgs. An FIR No. 46/20214 was also registered at (Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:03:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:28591-DB] (3 of 8) [HC-369/2023] Police Station, Dangiyawas, Jodhpur under Sections 323, 327, 341, 392, 298, 500, 501, 153A & 153B IPC.
2.2. Thereafter, in light of the aforesaid proposal, the respondent no.1 vide order dated 08.08.2023 passed the detention order of the detenue in the High Security Jail, Ajmer. Subsequently, a detailed representation was submitted before the Advisory Board for releasing the detenue from the detention. 2.3. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 while exercising the power under Section 9 (f) of the Act of 1988 passed the order dated 11.10.2023 directing detention of the detenue for one year, till 11.08.2024.
2.4. Thus, being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 08.08.2023 and 11.10.2023, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been preferred claiming the aforequoted reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no justifiable ground for detaining the detenue under Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1988, more particularly, the reason pertaining to criminal antecedents, as prior to the detention in question, the respondent did not substantially establish that the detenue is a dangerous person and a habitual offender, and therefore, the impugned orders are not justified in law.
3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the entire proceedings of the detention in question had happened without even affording an adequate opportunity of hearing and/or submitting representation to the detenue and the copy of the impugned order was also not served upon the detenue. Learned counsel also submits that the detenue was not even convicted in any of the (Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:03:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:28591-DB] (4 of 8) [HC-369/2023] criminal cases, as referred in the impugned order, and therefore, the impugned action is nothing but a clear violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
3.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon following judgments:-
(a) Ameena Begum Vs State of Telangana & Ors. (2023) 3 SCC 587;
(d) Gazi Khan alias Chotia Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 1990 SC 1361;
(c) Sanjay Rajendra Sharma alias Sunil Chhibber Vs Union of India (Cri.W/ No. 1204/1999, decided on 18.10.2000 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi);
(d) P.U. Abdul Rahiman Vs Union of India & Ors (Criminal Appeal No. 590/1990, decided on 01.11.1990 by the Hon'ble Apex Court); and
(e) Sri Rana Dutta Vs The Chairman, Advisory Board (WP (CRL) 7/2019, decided on 19.12.2019 by the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura).
4. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Joshi, learned GA cum AAG appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that on 30.05.2023, the SHO of the Police Station, Dangiyawas, Jodhpur submitted a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, East, Jodhpur seeking detention of the detenue, whereupon the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the matter for approval on 06.06.2023; thereafter, the Home Department of the Government (Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:03:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:28591-DB] (5 of 8) [HC-369/2023] of Rajasthan granted the necessary approval for the detention in question on 08.08.2023.
4.1. Learned GA cum AAG further submits that the impugned detention order was duly served and explained to the detenue and his family members and the Advisory Body vide order dated 03.10.2023 also found that the detention in question is in accordance with law.
4.2. Learned GA cum AAG also submits that prior to the detention in question, the detenue was given due opportunity of hearing, and the impugned detention order dated 08.08.2023 was duly served upon the detenue at the Central Jail, Jodhpur on 11.08.2023 and the same was proved from the Rojnamcha, and the detenue himself had put his signature as a proof of such service of the order.
5. Heard learned counsel of the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
6. This Court observes that the respondent no.2 made a proposal of the detention of the detenue Pura Ram under Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1988 before the respondent no.1 on the ground that the detenue was having criminal history since the year 2011. 6.1. The criminal history of the petitioner, as reflected in the document Annexure R/1 dated 30.05.2023, is reproduced as hereunder-:
Ø-la- eq-u0@fnukad@/kkjk tgka izdj.k ntZ urhtk iqfyl OrZeku fLFkfr gS uke Fkkuk 1- 131@28-05-2011 /kkjk lasnM+k pktZ'khV ua-179@16- ihVh 8@15 ,uMhih,l ,DV 11-2011 2- 46@24-04-2014 /kkjk 323] Mkafx;kokl pktZ'khV ua-59@08-07- ihVh 327] 341] 392] 298] 500] 2014 501] 153,] 153ch Hkknla (Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:03:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:28591-DB] (6 of 8) [HC-369/2023] 3- 105@15-06-2022 /kkjk Mkafx;kokl pktZ'khV ua-164@30- ihVh 8@21 ,uMhih,l ,DV 11-2022 4- 34@14-03-2023 /kkjk 8@15 Mkafx;kokl pktZ'khV ua-37@05-05- ihVh ] 25 ,uMhih,l ,DV 2023 6.2. Thereafter, in pursuance of the above, the respondent no.1 passed the impugned detention order for keeping the detenue in the High Security Jail, Ajmer. Subsequently, the respondent no.1 while exercising the power under Section 9 (f) of the Act of 1988 passed the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 directing to keep the detenue under detention for one year till 11.08.2024.
7. This Court further observes that the aforesaid three cases were registered under the NDPS Act against the detenue in connection with recovery of contraband (poppy straw) weighing 257.100 kgs, MDMA weighing 120 gms. and 11 kgs poppy straw and all the said cases are pending at the trial stage and the charge sheet have already been filed in the said cases.
8. This Court further observes that on 30.05.2023, a complaint was submitted seeking detention of the detenue, and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the matter for approval on 06.06.2023, and the same was approved by the concerned Department of the State on 08.08.2023, as mentioned above. This Court also observes that in pursuance of the said order dated 08.08.2023, the detenue has been lodged in High Security Jail, Ajmer, which is reflected in the receipt dated 11.08.2023 and that the order dated 08.08.2023 was served upon the detenue on same day i.e 11.08.2023, as has also been recorded in the Rojnamcha of the concerned Jail. Relevant portion of the said Rojnamcha is reproduced as hereunder:-
(Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:03:16 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:28591-DB] (7 of 8) [HC-369/2023] "jkstukepk fjiksVZ dh vof/k % 11-08-2023 ls 11-08-2023 Jheku iqfyl vk;qDr ,evksch 'kk[kk tks/kiqj iwoZ esa mDr nksuksa eqyfteku ds fQUxj fiazV djok dj jokuk gks dsUnzh; dkjkx`g tks/kiqj igqap dj izdj.k la[;k 126@2023 esa fxjQ~rkjlqnk eqyfte iqjkjke dks jktLFkku ljdkj x`g foHkkx ds vkns'k Øekad i-36¼13½ x`g*&8@2023 fnukad 08-08-2023 vkns'k dh fu:nxh vkns'k gksus ls mDr vkns'k dh izfr dks eqyfte iqjkjke dks vkns'k dh izfr nh tkdj jlhn ,d izfr ij gLrk{kj djok;s x;s o mDr vkns'k dh izfr dks tslh okjaV ds lkFk dsUnzh; dkjkx`g esa tek djok dj jlhn izkIr dh xbZ o Fkkuk gktk ds izdj.k la[;k 126 fnukad 10-08-2023 /kkjk 332] 353 Hkknla o 3ihMhihih ,DV es fxjQ~rkjlqnk eqfYteku iqjkjke iq= Jh fHk;kjke tkfr tkV mez 30 lky fuoklh Mkafx;kokl iqfyl Fkkuk Mkafx;kokl tks/kiqj iwoZ o jkepUnz iq= Jh nqxkZjke tkfr tkV mez 29 lky fuoklh Mkafx;kokl iqfyl Fkkuk Mkafx;kokl tks/kiqj iwoZ dks dsUnzh; dkjkx`g tks/kiqj esa nkf[ky djok dj tek jlhn izkIr dj jokuk gks gktj Fkkuk vk;s lEiw.kZ gkykt Jheku Fkkukf/kdkjh egksn; dks fuosnu fd;s x;s vken dh xbZ jiV ntZ gSA"
8.1. This Court further observes that detention in question has been ordered under the provisions of the Act of 1988 and the impugned detention order was served upon the detenue in due compliance of Section 3 (2) of the Act of 1988 on the same day of detention i.e 11.08.2023, and therefore, there is no violation of any of the provisions of Act of 1988 in the present case, as claimed on behalf of the petitioner.
9. This Court also observes that the Advisory Body reviewed the impugned detention order and thereafter, upheld the said order on the ground that as per Section 3 of the Act of 1988, the Competent Authority has been specially empowered to detain a person, if they are satisfied that the detenue was found involved in commission of the offence, and the said condition has been completely fulfilled in the present case. The present detenue was also given complete opportunity of hearing and he appeared (Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:03:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:28591-DB] (8 of 8) [HC-369/2023] before the concerned authority and made confession through video calling, as recorded by the Advisory Board, therefore, the Advisory Board rightly upheld the impugned order of detention.
Relevant part of the order of the Advisory Board is reproduced as hereunder:-
". . . . .Quick succession in which detenue is found involved in commission of offences under the NDPS Act, in our opinion, has rightly been made a basis to record a satisfaction by the competent authority that with a view to prevent the detenue from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it has become necessary to detain him in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act of 1988.
We also find that after the detention order was passed, the detenue was taken into custody and sent to High Security Jail Ajmer on 12.08.2023 on which date an order of detention along with grounds of detention was served on him and acknowledgement obtained.
In view of the aforesaid consideration, we are of the view that the order of detention of the detenue-Pooraram is in accordance with law and fully justified."
10. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner also do not render any assistance to his case.
12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition.
13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 83-SKant/-
(Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:03:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)