JARDULLAKHAN HANIFKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The District Magistrate, Panchmahals, on being satisfied that the petitioner is a dangerous person and that his activities have created an atmosphere of fear and terror in Dahod Town, passed an order on 22-8-1989, for detention of the petitioner, with a view to prevent him from carrying on the said activities. That order is challenged in the petition by the detenu himself.

(2.) . In the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that on 23-5-1984 the petitioner, alongwith his associates, was involved in commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 323 of the Indian penal Code and his said act had also created an atmosphere of fear and terror at that time. For that incident, an offence was registered against the petitioner and on 13-9-1984 it was compromised at the instance of some good persons. Next incident mentioned is of 30-6-1989. It is alleged that, on that day at about 11-00 O'clock, in Darpan talkies, the petitioner had behaved in a high-handed manner and had thereafter given blows with a knife to one Kamlesh Varma and his friend Rajiv who had tried to intervene. As a result thereof an atmosphere of fear and terror had developed amongst the spectators sitting in the said theatre. For that incident also a case has been registered for offences punishable under Secs. 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 4-7-1989 and was released on bail on 26-7-1989. Another incident which took place in June, 1989 is also referred to in the grounds. That incident had happened near S. T. Stand of Dahod. The petitioner is alleged to have beaten his victim with a cycle chain. The victim had not reported this incident to the Police because of fear of the petitioner. This incident had also led to breach of public order in that locality. One incident which had taken place in or about April, 1989 is also mentioned and it is alleged that the petitioner had beaten one person on that occasion and had given threats of killing him. Two other incidents - one of October, 1988 and another of December, 1988 - are also relied upon as grounds for detention and with respect to both these incidents, it is alleged that the petitioner had beatten some persons and that because of fear of the petitioner, they had not complained to the police about the offences committed by the petitioner. After referring to all these incidents, it is stated that because of such activities of the petitioner, an atmosphere of fear and terror has developed in Dahod Town and the only way to prevent him from committing such activities is to detain him.

(3.) . First contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate did rely upon the fact that the petitioner was released on bail in connection with the offence which had taken place on 30-6-1989 and in respect of which a case being Crime Register No. 69 of 1989 was registered. But neither a copy of the bail application made by the petitioner nor a copy of the bail order passed by the Court were produced before the detaining authority. Therefore, it should be held that as these relevant materials were not produced before the District Magistrate, the requisite satisfaction arrived at by him got vitiated. He drew our attention to the bail application made by the petitioner wherein it is clearly stated that the petitioner was innocent and had not committed the said offence. He also drew our attention to the order passed by the Court wherein it is observed that prima facie no case under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code was made out by the prosecution and that the incident in question had happened as a result of sudden quarrel between the petitioner and Kamlesh Varma. Relying upon the aforesaid averments made in the application and the observations made in the bail order, the learned Counsel submitted that the same were very must relevant and, therefore, should have been treated as vital materials. As these vital materials could have affected the mind of the District Magistrate one way or the other, these vital materials ought to have been placed before the District Magistrate by the Sponsoring Authority. As the same was withheld from the District Magistrate, and as it is not possible to say how this material would have affected the ultimate conclusion of the District Magistrate, it being a matter of his subjective satisfaction, the order passed by him must be regarded as having been vitiated on that ground.