RAJU RAMET GUPTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-detenue has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus or any other direction to set aside the order dated 19-10-2006 of his detention under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "PASA".. According to the impugned order of the Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad City, the petitioner is of cruel nature and always holding deadly weapons and in complicity with his colleagues indulging in anti social activity of committing theft of two wheelers and thereby spreading feeling of insecurity in public. That, three offences of theft punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been registered vide I-CR No.451/2006 dated 15-6-2006, I-CR No.461/2006 dated 19-6-2006 and I-CR No.260/2006 dated 20-6-2006. He is stated to have been arrested pursuant to those alleged offences on 24th and 25th June, 2006. Conclusion of the petitioner being a "dangerous person" is drawn also on the basis of statements of two witnesses, whose identities were not disclosed. Thus, after recording the subjective satisfaction about the petitioner being a "dangerous person" and with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the impugned order was made and grounds thereof were supplied to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel, Ms.Banna Dutta, appearing for the petitioner pointed out from the material on record that the statements of two witnesses, whose identity was not disclosed, did not inspire any confidence insofar as the material part thereof was couched in identical terms in both the statements recorded by the police commissioner. She further submitted that the petitioner, aged around 37, was not even alleged to have any earlier criminal record and, even assuming his involvement in three offences registered against him, they were stray incidents of theft and, at the worst, infraction of law and order. She further submitted that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of "dangerous person" under Section 2 (c. of the PASA since he cannot be said to have habitually committed any offence contemplated by the definition and he cannot be deemed to be acting in any manner which could be deemed to be likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order.

(3.) Learned AGP vehemently argued that the impugned order and the grounds stated therein were precise and the order based on subjective satisfaction of the authorized officer ought not to be set aside on a different interpretation of the material on record. He submitted that the incidents of theft of three motor cycles in quick succession were likely to cause feeling of insecurity among the general public or at least a section thereof. Under such circumstances, the impugned order of detention was not only perfectly legal but justified according to the submission.