Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The Commissioner of Police has supplied to the petitioner grounds on which he was detained vide letter dated 17/8/2012 according to which, as many as forty five criminal cases of different nature such as - causing damage to the public property, lurking house trespass, house breaking, outraging modesty of the woman, theft, extortion, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon, voluntarily causing grievous hurts by terror, wrongful restrain, voluntarily causing hurts to extort property, mischief, attempt to commit culpable homicide, attempt to murder etc.etc. were registered, starting from 30/8/1998 lastly till 4/4/2012. His matter was laid before the Advisory Board, which was satisfied as to the sufficiency of reasons for detention of the petitioner. The State Government thereupon confirmed the order of detention of petitioner for a period of one year from 15/5/2012 to 15/5/2013.

9. Per contra, Shri Dinesh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the writ petition and argued that petitioner is a habitual offender in the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act of 2006, which inter-alia defines word habitual to mean that acts or omissions committed repeatedly, persistently and frequently having a threat of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts or omission but shall not include isolated, individual and dissimilar acts or omissions. Petitioner has been regularly indulging himself in such nefarious acts since 1998. There are as many as forty five criminal cases registered against him and many of which are of serious nature. There are allegations against him of causing damage to the public property, lurking house trespass, house breaking, outraging modesty of the woman, theft, extortion, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon, voluntarily causing grievous hurts by terror, wrongful restrain, voluntarily causing hurts to extort property, mischief, attempt to commit culpable homicide & attempt to murder. It was therefore very necessary in order to maintain public order that Section 3(1) of the Act of 2006 was invoked against petitioner. It is denied that there was no live link between the activities of the petitioner and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority because five criminal cases were registered against petitioner in the year 2011 and order of detention was passed on 15/5/2012 but within this 4 months of 2012 itself, two more criminal cases were registered against him. In many of those, petitioner has been convicted. Merely because his sentence has been suspended and he has been granted bail in certain cases, does not debar the competent authority from invoking provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act of 2006. Though, it is admitted that petitioner has been acquitted in as many as seven criminal cases but his acquittal has been brought about by reason of either by compromise with the complainant-party or witnesses having turned hostile on account of fear of the petitioner. Petitioner has wrongly stated that he has been acquitted in the criminal case arising out of FIR No.120/2003 registered at Police Station Jalupura for offence u/Ss.341, 342, 323 and 506 IPC. Fact is that the said case is still pending.