NAVGHANBHAI LAXMANBHAI BHARWAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant has pointed out that one FIR being C.R.No.I-98 of 2017 is registered with Viramgam Rural Police Station on 30.12.2017, wherein complainant is Kiritbhai Jesingbhai Gohil, who has disclosed the fact of his complaint at 2.30 p.m. before police, wherein there is categorical statement that one Pravinbhai Bhurabhai has conveyed him about the incident, which took place at 11.30 a.m. in the sim of Village: Shiyal so also connected incident, which took place at about 1.30 p.m. near Jakhwada bus-station. There is categorical disclosure that both these incidents are connected with each other and with reference to the same dispute between the parties. Pursuant to such disclosure by the complainant, the police has recorded a statement of Pravinbhai Bhurabhai Gohil, who was informed to the complainant on the same day i.e. 30.12.2017, as already disclosed in complaint itself. Moreover, said Pravinbhai was accompanying with the complainant at the relevant time and there is allegation that one of the accused has also beaten said Pravinbhai. Therefore, his presence and statement cannot be now denied by anyone. However, surprisingly, another FIR being C.R.No.II-164 of 2017 is registered with the same police station i.e. Viramgam Rural Police Station at 6.15 p.m. only for the incidence, which is already disclosed in first FIR and alleged to have been committed at 11.15 p.m. in the sim of Village: Shiyal, which is only regarding threat i.e. under Sections 504 , 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code with 'charges under Sections 183 and 184 of Village Panchayat Act'. However, fact in first FIR is very much clear wherein allegations and charges of threats and under The Village Panchayat Act is already disclosed. Therefore, prima facie, at this stage, even without entering into the further factual details and merits of the dispute between the parties or any other issue with reference to investigation regarding commission of offence, if any, by any of the accused, the fact is quite clear that the investigating agency has failed to consider the provisions of Section 220 of Criminal Procedure Code, which specifically makes it clear that if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence and if the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.

(3.) This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 17.2.2018 passed by respondent No.2, in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 [for short 'the Act'] by detaining the detenu as a "dangerous person" as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.