SARAFAT LIYAKATBHAI PATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms.S.G.Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.H.L.Jani, learned AGP for the respondents.

(2.) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 27th December, 2000 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of detention has been passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City under Section 3[1] of the PASA Act. The grounds of detention are communicated and supplied to the petitioner under Section 9[1] of the PASA Act. The petitioner has been detained in Bhavnagar Jail as Class II detenu. The petitioner has been considered as the bootlegger under Section 2[b] of the PASA Act. That one offence has been registered against the present petitioner at Meghaninagar Police Station vide C.R. No.5307 / 2000 dated 24th December, 2000. The statements of the secret witnesses are recorded on 24th December, 2000 and 25th December, 2000 and the same are verified by the detaining authority on 26th December, 2000. According to the grounds of detention, at the time of passing the detention order, the petitioner was under police remand, in other words, the detenu was in the police custody. There are other three co-detenu in respect of the very same offence, against whom also, the order of detention are passed by the detaining authority on the very same day. The details of the other co-detenus are as under :-

(3.) Learned advocate Ms.S.G.Patel has challenged the detention order on various grounds but according to her submission, two contentions are enough to vitiate the order of detention. The first contention raised by the learned advocate Ms.S.G.Patel is that at the time of passing the detention order, it is undisputed that the petitioner was on remand with police custody. Therefore, she submitted that after completion of the remand period, it is not necessary that the petitioner would have been released by the police authority but he was required to be produced before the concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate might have granted or might not have granted the bail in favour of the petitioner - detenu. In the event of non granting of the bail, the petitioner would have been sent to the judicial custody. Therefore, she submitted that when there is no cogent material with the detaining authority as to immediate release of the petitioner, then there is no purpose to pass the detention order against the petitioner or it can not be said that there were any compelling circumstances to pass the detention order against the present petitioner. She submitted that looking to one offence registered against the present petitioner dated 24th December, 2000, very hasty step has been taken by the concerned authority to the effect that on the same day, when the alleged offence has been committed by the petitioner, statement of secret witnesses were recorded on 24th December, 2000 and 25th December, 20000 and on the very next date, these statements were verified by the detaining authority. Thereafter, immediately in a mechanical manner, the detaining authority has verified the said statements and not only that after verification of the statements of the secret witnesses on the next date, the order of detention has been passed without examining the genuineness of the statements which have been recorded from the secret witnesses. Therefore, she submitted that within a period of four days only, the order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority from the date of offence dated 24th December, 2000. Therefore, according to her submission, the detaining authority has acted in very hasty, mechanical and arbitrary manner and therefore, the order of detention has been passed without application of mind and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court.