KAYYUM BABUBHAI SHAIKH Vs. POLICE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged his detention order dated 11.2.2014 by respondent no. 1 since he was detained on 18.2.2014 pursuant to such order under the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner has challenged the order on different grounds submitting that he is innocent and has not committed any offence and that the order of detention is illegal since there is no subjective satisfaction to consider him as a 'Dangerous Person' and that even if there is involvement for the offences for which he is detained, such offences cannot be created as disturbance of public order even though it may be a breach of law and order situation by the petitioner. However, as recorded hereinabove, petitioner does not admit his involvement at all in any of such crime. Petitioner has also challenged the impugned order on several other technical grounds viz. delay in passing the order of detention, mode of service of order of detention, non -supply of material information, their right to remain free and the fact that in both the FIRs, the competent Court has already released him on bail and that thereafter there is no incident.

(2.) AS against that, respondent has supported the order of detention submitting that petitioner is involved in the heinous crime and has beaten the public with cudgel, sword like deadly weapons and even when he was released on bail for such offences, he continued his activities to disturb the public at large and ultimately he was found with deadly weapons like country made pistol with six live cartridges as it was recovered from his possession in a public place. It is further submitted that now a days crime by using fire arm has been increased in the State and therefore there is subjective satisfaction by the competent authority to detain the petitioner.

(3.) PRIMA -facie, it becomes clear that petitioner has been involved in two different cases, in first case, he has beaten the complainant with cudgel and his co -accused has beaten the complainant with sword. In the complainant, the complainant has categorically stated that even after incident at the public place, the petitioner and his group has rushed to the house of the complainant and tried to kill the complainant but complainant had closed their house and remained inside to safeguard themselves, therefore, petitioner could not kill him. Whereas, in another FIR, petitioner was found with the country made pistol with six live cartridges. So far as first offence is concerned, the submission of the petitioner that he is not involved in the incident cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there was a cross complaint, wherein allegation is that petitioner has been beaten by the present complainant. Thereby, involvement and incident as alleged in the complaint is admitted position, wherein, somebody is injured seriously because of the blow of the cudgel whereas, in the second FIR, petitioner has no excuse but to admit that as per police papers country made pistol with six live cartridges were found from him but it is his defence that he has not used country made pistol and it was kept only for personal safety. However, such detention cannot be considered at this stage considering subjective satisfaction by the competent authority for detaining the petitioner so as to restrain him from committing same or other serious offences and thereby to keep peace in the area. It cannot be ignored that though orders of detention are harsh and require to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law and rules and though Constitution provides heed of strict and specific subjective satisfaction for detaining person. The fact is also undisputed and clear that the Constitution itself permits such statute, which is to be used only with some safeguards and for the purpose, Competent Authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction so as to detain any person.