RANA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.3.2012 contained in memo no. 415 passed by the District Magistrate, Munger under section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act (herein after referred to as the Act) and further for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 7/CCA-10-21/2012 HP 3187 dated 9.4.2012 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Department of Home under section 12 (2) of the Act by which the order dated 29.3.2012 was confirmed. Further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus declaring the detention of the petitioner under the Act as illegal and also for directing the petitioner to be released forthwith.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that on 12.10.2011 the Officer In-charge of Dharhara Police Station called the petitioner and detained him till 14.10.2011 and thereafter at 3.00 PM he was sent to jail in connection with Dharhara P.S. Case No.113 of 2011 under sections 25(1-B)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The villagers made representation before the Chief Minister and D.I. G. of Police. He complained from jail to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while the petitioner was being detained in jail custody. He received notice contained in memo no. 2112 dated 15.2.2012 from the District Magistrate, Munger by which the petitioner was asked to file show cause as to why he could not be detained under section 12 (2) of the Act, as per the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police as contained in his letter bearing memo no. 4831 dated 11.11.2011. The petitioner filed his show cause through the Superintendent of Jail on 1.3.2012. The District Magistrate, Munger passed the order under section 12 (2) of the Act mentioning two grounds of detention. The first was Dharhara P.S. Case No. 113 of 2011 dated 14.10.2011 registered under the Arms Act and second is Dharhara P.S. Case No. 86 of 2010 registered under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Department of Home (Police) in routine matter and without application of mind passed the impugned order as contained in memo No. 3187 dated 9.4.2012 and approved the detention order of the petitioner. The impugned order mentions 12 cases. It has been submitted that mentioning of 12 cases is entirely biased as in Dharhara P.S. Case No. 20 of 2004, 32 of 2004, Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 122 of 2011, Dharhara P.S. Case No. 26 of 2007 and 65 of 2007 the petitioner has already been acquitted. The petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board on 24.4.2012 after expiry of 3 months and so mandatory provision under section 19 of the Act was not followed. It has been submitted that due to non-application of mind and also due to non-fulfillment of the statutory provisions, the preventive detention of the petitioner is illegal.

(3.) The State of Bihar has filed two separate counter affidavits. One is on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, namely, the State of Bihar and through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar and Under Secretary, Govt. of Bihar. Separate affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate. Their contention is that the order has been passed after due application of mind. The District Magistrate, Munger has passed the order under section 12 (2) of the Act. The detention of the petitioner was essential for maintenance of public order as the petitioner is an anti social element and habitual offender committing crimes of serious nature. The detention order dated 29.3.2012 has been approved by the State Government under section 12 (3) of the Act within statutory period of 12 days from the I date of detention. The petitioner filed a representation on 13.4.2012 which was received by the Department on 17.4.2012 on which action has immediately been taken and a comment with regard to the representation of the petitioner was called for from the District Magistrate, Munger. Despite the repeated reminders on 26.4.2012 and 2.5.2012 the comment was not received. The department approved the detention order and referred the matter to the Advisory Board under section 19 of the Act. Representation of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board on 24.4.2012. The petitioner was given proper opportunity. The Board opined existence of sufficient grounds for detention. The order was passed under section 22 of the Act. Authorities have acted promptly and there was no delay on their part.