KHURVESH @ PAPPU @ PAHALWAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been detained vide orders dated 8th June, 2009 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, in exercise of his powers under sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Act') recording the satisfaction that such detention is necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This order was approved by the Lt. Governor/respondent no.2 on 18th June, 2009. The Advisory Board has also confirmed this order of detention on the basis of which the respondent no.2 has passed the order dated 5th August, 2009 directing that the petitioner shall be detained for a period of 12 months from the date of detention i.e. 8th June, 2009. Before filing the present petition, the petitioner had made a representation before the respondent no.2 to recall the aforesaid orders, but without any success in as much as respondent no.2 rejected the said representation on 9th September, 2009. Left with no other departmental remedy, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the said detention order dated 5th August, 2009 and directing release of the petitioner from jail.

(2.) Before we highlight the grievance of the petitioner on the basis of which the impugned order is challenged, it would be appropriate to take note of the material contained in the said detention order dated 8th June, 2009 to find out the basis for the passing of such an order. The impugned order dated 8th June, 2009 contains the grounds of detention and these grounds start with the observations that the petitioner is a desperate character and a hardened criminal of the area of police station Nand Nagri, Delhi. It is further alleged that he started his criminal activities in the year 1996 at the age of 18 years and has been involved in 32 criminal cases including that of voluntary causing hurt, wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation, extortion, robbery, rape, obstructing public servants from discharging their official duties, culpable homicide, attempt to murder and murder etc. apart from committing the acts punishable under the Arms Act. Even preventive action under the provisions of Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been taken against him. Criminal record of the petitioner is tabulated thus :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_3478_ILRDLH20_2010_1.html</FRM>

(3.) On the basis of said record, it is opined that the petitioner is so desperate and a dangerous criminal that witnesses in pending trial are likely to be intimidated by his presence outside the jail. From the remarks column, it is discerned that out of said 32 cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in 17 cases, discharged in one case, 3 cases resulted in compromise, convicted in one case and in respect of 10 cases the trial is still pending.