VALBHAI MEGHABHAI MANKA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought writ of habeas corpus and prayed to set aside order dated 9-1-2007 of preventive detention of the detenue under the provisions of Section 3 of the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act"). It is stated in the grounds of detention furnished to the detenue that the detenue was openly and repeatedly flouting the provisions of the Prohibition Act and an offence was registered in Bhachau Police Station for the offences under Sections 66 (1) B, 65 A, E, 81 and 83 of the Prohibition Act on 7-12-2006 vide C.R.No. 5122/2006. It is also stated that the detenue was released on bail pursuant to aforesaid Criminal Case and, relying upon statements of two witnesses, it was found that the detenue was in habit of dealing in illicit liquor and pressurizing others to indulge in that business by threatening or beating them.

(2.) The petition was pressed mainly on the grounds that the detenue was implicated in the offence merely as a by-stander and his statement was recorded under duress. It was submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Naik, that the co-detenue and main accused person in the aforesaid case was ordered to be released by decision dated 14-6-2007 of this Court (Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice Akil Kureshi) in Special Civil Application No.4873 of 2007 and the respondents have not challenged that decision.

(3.) By filing an affidavit of the detaining authority it is, inter alia, stated that, " ........ the muddamal i.e. 5760 bottles of English Liquor were seized from the premises of Pancha Dahyabhai Harijan. However the petitioner was present at the premises when raid was conducted. The police personnel have also recorded the statements of petitioner as well as Madhabhai Bavabhai Thakore who was also present at the premises when the raid was conducted, and they have admitted before the police officers that they were indulging in the activities of bootlegging. It is submitted that even the Panchnama records that the petitioner was present in the premises at the time when the raid was conducted. Therefore, the FIR is lodged against the petitioner and other two co-accused, and the said persons were also arrested and thereafter enlarged on bail by the competent Court."