MASOOM Vs. THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order of preventive detention passed by the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Raichur and the order dated 20.01.2014 extending the detention by 12 months passed by the State Government-respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-G, are called in question in this writ petition by the detenue. Petitioner was proceeded against under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act' herein after). The Deputy Commissioner, Raichur passed an order in exercise of his power under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act ordering detention of the petitioner vide Annexure-C. The grounds for detention have been that he was involved in as many as six criminal cases and the documents forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, from the Superintendent of Police, Raichur District, Raichur, with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in various offences disclosed that he was a menace to the society as he was indulging in taking law into his own hands affecting peace and tranquillity in the area and that if he was not detained there was every possibility he continuing to indulge in such activities terrorizing the public and committing serious offences which would eventually affect public peace and tranquillity. Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 19.11.2013 was for a period of three months. This order of detention was approved by the State Government on 25.11.2013 and the matter was referred for the opinion of Advisory Board. The Advisory Board gave its opinion and based on the opinion of the Advisory Board, the detention order was confirmed for a period of 12 months by issuing an order dated 20.01.2014 by the State Government.

(2.) It is also necessary to notice here that the petitioner had made a representation dated 27.11.2013 requesting for his release bringing to the notice of the State Government various facts including his acquittal in five of the criminal cases and also the order of bail granted in the sixth case, which according to the petitioner is the only case pending against him. This representation submitted by petitioner is at Annexure-R5. In the said representation, it is contended by the petitioner that Crime No. 52/2001 of Sadar Bazar Police Station, has ended in acquittal. Similarly, Crime Nos. 202/2004 and 110/2013 have also ended in acquittal. In respect of other cases i.e., Crime Nos. 224/2011, 183/2013 and 184/2013 which were still pending, he has been enlarged on bail. It is pointed out that this representation has not been considered on merits, but an endorsement has been issued vide Annexure-F1 rejecting the representation stating that there were no new circumstances to reconsider the matter regarding his detention.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has principally contended that petitioner has been acquitted in three cases and has been enlarged on bail in three other cases. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that when the order of detention was passed, petitioner had been enlarged on bail by an order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 15965/2013 vide order dated 19.11.2013 as regards offences registered in Crime No. 184/2013 by Sadar Bazar Police Station. He points out, by referring to the said order, that by taking note of the fact that there was no active participation by the accused in the assault alleged, bail has been granted on condition that petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum and also by imposing other conditions.