RAMESH TIWARY ALIAS RAMESH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application by petitioner has been filed for quashing the order No. 8193 dated 2.8.2004 issued by the State Government in the Home (Police) Department granting approval of detention order dated 24.7.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram) for detention of the petitioner under Section 12(2) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (in short, the Act) and for quashing the order No. 9880 dated 11.9.2004 of State Government, Home (Police) Department, confirming the order dated 24.7.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram) and directing for detention of petitioner till 25.7.2005.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he is a graduate, belongs to a respectable family and he is associated with social activities in his region and has organised various functions including the political one in the district of Rohtas. He was implicated in a false case namely, Sasaram P.S. Case No. 523/2003 dated 14.10.2003 and was put behind the bar on 15.10.2003 and since then he is in jail custody. While he was in jail he was served the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram under Section 12(2) of the Act directing the authorities concerned to detain him on the ground that he is a renowned and habitual criminal indulged in criminal activities and prejudicial to the public order. The District Magistrate, forwarded detention order to State Government for approval and petitioner was asked to file representation against his detention if he so desires and he submitted detailed representation denying the charges levelled against him and requested the authorities to cancel detention order (Annexure-2) but the State Government in most arbitrary and mechanical manner rejected the representation (Annexure-3) and his detention order was finally confirmed by the State Government under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act and it was communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 11.9.2004 (Annexure-1/2). The further case of the petitioner is that bare perusal of the grounds which are said to be basis of passing of detention order shows that there is nothing in the grounds to effect the public order and on this ground alone, the detention order is bad in law and is fit to be set aside and detaining authority failed to apply its judicial mind that the petitioner was already behind the bar in Sasaram P.S. Case No. 523 of 2003 when detention order was passed and there was no likelihood of his being released in near future. According to the petitioner, detaining authority did not apply its judicial mind before passing of detention order and disposal of his representation was also delayed According to the petitioner, a number of substantial questions of law such as, whether detention order was passed in sheer disregard of the provisions of the Act, whether the same has been passed in a most mechanical manner without application of mind, whether there has been any justification to pass detention order when petitioner is already in custody, whether detention order is hit by the principles of double jeopardise, whether the initial order of detention is illegal and bad because of non-mentioning of the period of detention etc. arise in this case.

(3.) Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 have appeared and have filed separate counter-affidavits. Petitioner has also filed reply to the counter-affidavits.