LAWS(GJH)-2004-7-2

PITAMBAR RAMANBHAI BIRADE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On July 28, 2004
PITAMBAR RAMANBHAL BIRADE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-detenu, who is a police constable, has knocked the doors of this Court by way \ of this petition challenging the detention order dated 24-1 -2004, by which he is detained as a "bootlegger", under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 ("PASA", for short). Along with the detention order, the petitioner has also been served with the grounds of detention.

(2.) In the grounds of detention, there is a reference about one criminal case which is registered against the petitioner as C.R. No. 1011/2003 at Udhna Police Station. The said case is registered against the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act. It is alleged against the petitioner that, the petitioner is dealing in foreign liquor and is violating the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. After considering the aforesaid case, and after considering the statements of some witnesses, whose names have not been disclosed to the petitioner, the authority has detained him as a "bootlegger" under PASA.

(3.) As stated earlier, the petitioner, at the relevant time, was serving as a police constable in the city of Surat. It is stated in the detention order that, the petitioner is having a criminal mind and is keeping dangerous arms and is of an aggressive nature. In the detention order, the activities of the petitioner are highlighted. In the detention order, there is also a reference about the statements of some witnesses, whose names have not been disclosed to the petitioner. The said witnesses have stated that the petitioner and his associates, including his wife, gave threat to the witnesses and started attacking them. with knife and other dangerous arms. The detaining authority is of the opinion that the names of such witnesses are not required to be disclosed to the petitioner as the petitioner is a dangerous person, and such names of the witnesses were kept secret, by claiming privilege under Section 9(2) of the PASA. The said detention order is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner.