MADASING @ HARJITSING CHARANSING SIKLIGER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner -detenue has challenged the order of detention passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara city, dated 18 th October 2014, in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'the PASA Act') and has also prayed for an order to set him free from detention.

(2.) The order of detention along with the grounds supplied to the detenue are suggestive of the fact that the petitioner has been detained labelling him as a "dangerous person" as provided under sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the PASA Act. The grounds of detention are also suggestive of the fact that the detaining authority has taken into consideration three cases, (i) registered with the Makarpura Police Station vide I - CR No.264 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, (ii) registered with the City Police Station vide I -CR No.218 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, and (iii) registered with the Kishanwadi Police Station vide I -CR No.236 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The status of all the three F.I.Rs. has been shown as "police investigation". The subjective satisfaction as reflected from the grounds are to the effect that the detenue is habitually indulging in the offences falling within Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. His highhanded actions create a situation of disturbance of public order. On these grounds, the Police Commissioner has ordered detention of the petitioner.

(3.) Ms.Panchal, the learned advocate appearing for the detenue submitted that the order of detention is malicious, unjust and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that there is no material available with the detaining authority to indicate that the detenue is a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(c) of the PASA Act nor there is any material or antecedent to show that he is a habitual offender and involved in antisocial activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is his case that this order of detention is nothing but abuse of power at the hands of the Police Commissioner.