SONAJI VALAJI THAKOR Vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MEHSANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Habeas Corpus Petitions arising under Article 226 of the Constitution of India presenting similar questions of facts and law have been taken for hearing together with the consent of Learned advocate and Learned APP and they shall be decided and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The Special Criminal Application No. 169/92 has been filed by the petitioner detenu Rajnikant have challenging the orders of detention pronounced by the District Magistrate, Mehsana dated 16-1-1992 available at Annexure A, saying that the petitioner detenu is a bootlegar and he requires to be preventively detained under the relevant provisions of the PASAA, 1985. The grounds of detention available at Annexure B dated 16-1-92 would go to show that as many as 7 criminal cases for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 have been registered against the petitioner detenu.

(3.) The special Criminal Application No. 170/92 has been filed by the petitioner Sonaji Thakor, challenging the orders of detention pronounced by the District Magistrate, Mehsana, available at Annexure A, dated 16-1-92, saying that the petitioner detenu is a dangerous person and therefore he requires to be preventively detained under the relevant provisions of the PASSA 1985. The grounds of the detention at Annexure B dated 16-1-92 make a reference of 3 criminal cases registered against the petitioner detenu at Mehsana City Police Station.