BHAIYA @ BHAIYALAL @ ARVIND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dated 28.07.2012, Annexure P-3 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 21.09.2010, Annexure P-7, passed by respondent no.1 confirming the order of detention, this petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that on 24.07.2012, a first information report was lodged against him upon which an offence under Section 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC was registered at about 22.50 hours. On the next date, i.e., 25.07.2012, five other reports of petty offences were registered in between 11.15 hours and 15 hours in one day. The Superintendent of Police relying upon F.I.Rs submitted a report before the District Magistrate on 27.07.2012.

(3.) The State Government has filed their reply on 08.02.2013, after availing three opportunities, wherein it is contended that various FIR in two days have been registered against the petitioner on account of his anti social activities of terrorizing the general public. It is denied that the said FIRs have been registered under the political pressure. The petitioner is an anti social activist who indulged in gundaism, loot, causes attempt to murder, theft in houses using dangerous weapons. However, the peoples of the locality were in terror by such act, therefore the officer competent, in exercise of the powers under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the Act has rightly passed the order of detention on 28.07.2012, considering the memorandum of the Superintendent of Police submitted on 27.07.2012. It is submitted that the grounds of detention has been communicated vide Annexure R-2, intimation has been furnished to the Home Department, as per the document Annexure R-3, and immediately he was taken into custody on 28.07.2012. It is also submitted that as per the notification issued on 10th July, 2012, the District Magistrate, Indore is empowered to exercise the powers under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. It is also submitted that the department of Home has sent the approval on 13.08.2012 which was done on 08.08.2012, as per Annexure R-7. It was confirmed vide letter dated 21.09.2012 Annexure R-10, however, clarified that the period of detention of the petitioner shall be of 12 months upto 27.07.2013. It is also submitted that the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order Annexure R-9 on 02.01.2013. In such circumstances, strict compliance of the provisions of the Act has been done by the State Government while passing the order, therefore, interference in this petition is not called for.