SANDEEP JOHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is said to be a desperate and hardened criminal operating a gang called . 'Bhoori Gang'. He was first detained on 23.4.1999 which was quashed by this court in CrI.W.370/99 vide order dated 14.12.1999. He was thereafter again detained for one year vide order dated 31.10.2001 passed by Police Commissioner under Section 3(2) of National Security Act to prevent him from indulging in any activity prejudicial to public order which is under challenge in the present petition. He: made representation against his detention on 19. 11.2001 which was, however, rejected by respondents. His detention order was later confirmed which he is questioning now on all conceivable grounds.

(2.) Petitioner's first plea is that there was no compelling necessity and no cogent material for his detention- He was already in custody and there was no prospect of his being let off on bail and thus no need for his detention. The detention order also suffered from non-application of mind as Detaining Authority had relied upon FIR Nos.289 and 266/97 which figure in cases from Sr.Nos.l to 17 which otherwise are projected as narration of his past criminal history. The detaining authority had in this manner relied upon the grounds which formed the subject matter of his first detention thus vitiating the detention. He claims that no material/grounds prior to 14.12.1999 when his first detention was quashed by the court could be taken into consideration and involvement in cases shown against him thereafter was false and concocted.

(3.) Petitioner also asserts that incidents mentioned by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention related to maintenance! of law and order and not public order which was evident from the allegations contained in FIR Nos.645, 442 and 433/01 and, as such his detention had no nexus with the stated object. He also submits that his acquittal in about 1.0 cases could not have been taken into consideration for his detention. There was a long delay in disposal of his representation and that he was not supplied certain documents which were otherwise supplied to some others detained with him and involved in similar cases. The sponsoring authority had suppressed some material like 161 Cr.P.C. statements in FIR No.162/2000 and the evidence recorded in the court of ACMM which was not placed before the detaining authority and which could have influenced his decision either way.