OSMAN ALI KHATAKI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been detained under the order Annexure-A to the petition, dated October 16, 1992, passed by the Police Commissioner, Rajkot City - respondent No. 1 herein - under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short 'the PASA"), on the allegation that he is a dangerous person. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, he has challenged the detention order and his continued detention.

(2.) In the grounds of detention Annexure-C to the petition, it is stated that the petitioner is indulging in violent activities in the areas of Jaganath Plot, Radhe Hotel, Bilwas and Girnar Cinema, and there the petitioner moves about carrying with him lethal weapons like knives, and he, with the help of his associates, with a view to carrying out his common object, assaults, beats and belabours people in public, and injures them by means of knives and glass pieces, and such anti-social activities of the petitioner are prejudical to the maintenance of public order in the city of Rajkot. It is also stated in the grounds of detention that four cases as detailed in the grounds of detention have been registered against the petitioner at the Police Stations in the City of Rajkot. The first case is in relation to the incident dated May 6, 1992, and in that connection it is stated in the grounds of detention that one Amrut Kalu Gadhvi had, on that day, gone to Girnar Cinema and as the said Amrut Kalu could not get ticket at the booking window for the reason that there was 'Houseful' in the theatre, the petitioner who was present there, at first asked the said Amrut Kalu to give him Rs. 15 - if he (Amrut Kalu) wanted the cinema ticket, whereupon when Amrut Kalu took out currency notes from his pocket with a view to purchase the ticket from the petitioner, the petitioner noticed that Amrut Kalu had with him Rs. 500/, and therefore, the petitioner lured away Amrut Kalu in a nearby lane where two other associates of the petitioner were standing, and there Amrut Kalu was assaulted by the petitioner and his associates and they robbed away the money from Amrut Kalu, and in that connection an offence punishable under Sections 392, 323, 114 I.P.Code has been registered at C.R.No. 267/92, against the petitioner and others on May 8, 1992. The second case registered against the petitioner was in relation to an offence that was committed by the petitioner on August 14, 1992. In the incident that led to the registration of the said case, the petitioner robbed away Rs. 100/ from one Ramesh Shamjibhai near Radhe Hotel, and an offence in that connection punishable under Sections 397 and 114 I.P.Code and Section 135 Bombay Police Act was registered at C.R.No. 501/92 on August 14, 1992. The third case registered against the petitioner was in relation to the incident that happened on July 28, 1992, in which the petitioner had assulted and intimidated one Sunil Babubhai Brahmin on the ground that he was a Brahmin. The fourth case registered against the petitioner was on the basis that on September 12, 1992, the petitioner carried with him in public place a big knife in violation of the prohibitory orders issued by the concerned authority under Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act, and had thus committed an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. After giving the details of the four cases registered against the petitioner in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority stated that even persons other than the victims of the aforesaid four cases have become victims of the anti-social activities of the petitioner. But out of fear emanating from the petitioner, they are not prepared to go to the police station and lodge information against the petitioner. However, some of such persons have been taken into confidence and on the assurance of anonimily about them being maintained, they have made statements. After making these statements in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has given the substance of the statements of three witnesses recorded by the concerned authority, and pointed out that about 20 days prior to September 16, 1992, the petitioner had gone to the shop of witness No. 1 and had demanded Rs. 200/- for consuming liquor, and on witness No. 1 refusing to oblige him, the petitioner drew out a knife, pointed it at the neck of the witness and took away some cash from the till of the witness and intiminated the witness not to lodge an information about the incident. Referring to the substance of the statement of witness No. 2, the detaining authority, in the grounds of detention stated that about 10 days prior to September 16,1992, the petitioner went to the shop of witness No. 2, and at that time, a man and a woman had come to that shop for some work. But the petitioner and his associates who came there, tried to harass and molest the woman and thereupon the woman's companion male objected. But the petitioner tried to assault that male companion of the woman by means of a knife and thereupon both the man and the woman ran away and entered Girnar Cinema. So far as the substance of the statement of witness No. 3, it goes to show that about a month prior to September 16, 1992, the petitioner had approached witness No. 3 in company of his two associates and the petitioner had then carried a knife with him, and he pointed the knife at the neck of witness No. 3 and extorted from the pocket of witness No. 3, a sum of Rs. 200/-, and then the petitioner and his associates felled down that witness and belaboured him, and at that time, quite a large number of persons gathered there, and soon then they started running helter-skelter, but nobody dared to save the witness who was being assaulted and belaboured; and on account of the fear emanating from the petitioner, that witness also has not dared to lodge an information about the incident.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid facts as narrated by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority stated that the petitioner is a desparate, dangerous and fanatic person and it would not be in public interest to disclose to him the names and addresses and business places of the witnesses. On this basis, the detaining authority has claimed privilege not to disclose those particulars to the petitioner, under Section 9(2) of the PASA. On the aforesaid facts, the detaining authority stated that the petitioner is a dangerous person. The detaining authority further stated that the other less drastic remedies under the Bombay Police Act would take a long time during which the petitioner would continue to behave in the manner in which he behaved in the past and such a possibility being quite strong, it is not advisable to resort to such proceedings under the Bombay Police Act, if the petitioner has to be prevented from acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On these statements in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner. The detaining authority also stated in the grounds of detention that in respect of the cases registered against him, the petitioner was in custody. However, there was a high degree of probability of the petitioner applying for bail in those cases, and/or getting released on bail in those cases, and once he is released on bail, he would once again indulge in such anti-social activities posing threat to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, in the opinion of the detaining authority, there was no other alternative but to pass the detention order.