SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this criminal writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other order or direction commanding the respondents to treat as cancelled the reference to violation of provisions of Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as mentioned in the first information report registered as Patna P.S. Case No. 114 of 1991 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and Section 3 (1) of the Act, as contained in Annexure-1. It has been further prayed for quashing of the said part of the first information report made under the Act against the petitioner, which is pending in the court of respondent No. 3.

(2.) According to the petitioner, a first information report was lodged by one Lalit Kishore Bux Rai on 8-12-1991 alleging therein that on 7-12-1991 at about 7.30 p.m., a mob of 50-60 persons surrounded the house of the informant and they asked the informant to hand over his licensee gun, whereupon the informant, due to fear, gave them his two licensee D.B.B.L. gun along with ten live cartridges. It has further been alleged that the extremists belonging to M.C.C. Party often came and held meetings in the area. The informant claims to have identified some of the persons of the mob, who are named in the first information report and he further claimed to identify other extremists after seeing them. It was also alleged, that while going away, they raised slogans as "M.C.C. Zindabad". On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the second respondent, registered the case being Patna P.S. Case No. 114 of 1991, dated 8-12.1991, under Section 395 of the Code and Section 3 (1) of the Act, as contained in Annexure-1.

(3.) Apart from taking several grounds of attack, the petitioner has stated in this writ application that there is no allegation in the first information report, as contained in Annexure-1, that the petitioner has committed any offence under Section 3 (1) of the Act and the action of the second respondent, who is the officer-in-charge of the Patna Police Station, in implicating the petitioner for the offence under the Act is wholly arbitrary, mala fide and the same has been added for collateral purposes.