MUKRRAM ABBAS ISLAM SHAIKH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Mr.S.A.Ansari, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that to brand the petitioner as a 'Dangerous Person' under Section 2(c) of the Act, the Authority has relied on two offences registered at (i) C.R.No.I-68/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) on 7.11.2016 with DCB Police Station and (ii) C.R.No.I-136 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 114 of Indian Penal Code registered on 25.07.2019 with Narol Police Station. Pursuant to the registration of these offences, the applicant came to be arrested on 7.11.2016 and released on bail by an order dated 02.03.2017 for the first offence as also in second offence the applicant came to be arrested on 14.10.2019 and released on bail by an order dated 07.01.2020, as reflected from the order of detention. He has also submitted that the registration of offences under the Indian Penal Code simplicitor will not reflect breach of public order. However, the order of preventive detention has come to be passed on 09.01.2020. However, he has submitted that mere registration of FIR/s for the offence under the Indian Penal Code by itself would not render the petitioner liable in absence of any credible material to conclude that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Referring to the impugned order, it is pointed out that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based upon the fact that the petitioner is a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. It is submitted that merely because a person can be termed as dangerous person unless his activities are found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a person cannot be preventively detained. Therefore, he has submitted that subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is vitiated and therefore, order of preventive detention is required to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Over and above that, the detaining authority has relied on statements of two anonymous witnesses. He has, drawing attention of the Court to the date of recording statements of anonymous witnesses, submitted that it has come to be recorded on 07.01.2020 and verified by the detaining authority himself on 09.01.2020 whereas the detenue ordered to be released on bail in last offence on 07.01.2020. However, the order of preventive detention has come to be passed on 09.01.2020. He has further submitted that subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is vitiated, and therefore, order of preventive detention is required to be quashed and set aside.