USMANMIYA ABBASMIYA PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the detenu has challenged his detention order dated 7.5.2002. By the impugned order, the detenu is detained in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the PASA" for short), as, the detaining authority found that the detenu is a "dangerous person" and is required to be detained under the preventive detention, so that, he may not continue with such type of dangerous activities.

(2.) Along with the detention order, the detenu was also served with the grounds of detention. In the said grounds, it is mentioned that criminal case is filed against the detenu, which is pending at Gomtipur Police Station, being 0163/2000, under Sections 324, 323 and 294(B) of IPC as well as under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Another criminal case, which is mentioned in the said grounds of detention, is registered at Gomtipur Police Station, being 0159/2001, under Section 324 of IPC read with Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. It is also mentioned in the said grounds that, both cases are pending against the detenu before the competent criminal court. The last case, which is mentioned in the grounds of detention, is the case registered at Gomtipur Police Station, being 0112/2002 dated 2.5.2002, under Section 326 of IPC read with Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. It is mentioned in the grounds of detention that, in the first two cases, the detenu was released on bail and so far as the last case registered on 2.5.2002 is concerned, the petitioner tried to inflict injury to one person, who was passing through Gomtipur Navghadia Chawl. It is mentioned in the grounds of detention that the detenu is a "dangerous person" and because of his illegal activities, public order is disturbed. The said detention order is challenged by the detenu on various grounds.

(3.) On behalf of the detenu, it is argued that, so far as two incidents, which are mentioned in the grounds of detention, are concerned, they are stale incidents and the same have no connection with the impugned detention order in view of remoteness of the incidents in question. It is further argued that, even otherwise, aforesaid two cases, viz., Case Nos.0163/2000 and 0159/2001, relate to individual dispute and by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that, by the aforesaid two cases, public order is disturbed, in any manner.