RAMESH SINGH @ GOLKI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as Act, 1981, was initiated against the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. passed an order on 28.4.2005 under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1981 for his detention on the ground that it is necessary to prevent him from acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Annexure-1. The final order was passed under Section 21(2) read with Section 22 of the Act. 1981 vide order dated 18.6.2005 and the petitioner was directed to be detained till 27.4.2006, Annexure-2. According to the petitioner the detention orders are bad.in law.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is accused in several cases. His movement/action was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such the order of detention was passed though he was in jail but tried to come out from the jail. The order of detention was approved by the State Government within the time. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board and thereafter the final order of detention, Annexure-2, was passed directing to detain the petitioner till 27.4.2006. In the nutshell the counter affidavit is in support of the order of detention.

(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in some cases the petitioner was granted bail/acquitted and as such the order of detention is bad in law. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be attractive but it has no force at all. For the purpose of initiating a proceeding grant of bail/acquittal is hot at all relevant, requirement is that the person concerned must be anti-social element. The anti-social element has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Act, 1981 which says, "Anti-social element" means a person who(i) either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code : or (ii) habitually commits or abets the commission of offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. There are situations also which have been enumerated in subclauses (iii) and (iv) where from it appears that lodging a case are sufficient for initiating a proceeding, however, when offence is under Arms Act as mentioned in subclause (v) there is need of conviction for initiating a proceeding. The case in hand is covered by Section 2(d) sub-clauses (i) to (iv). Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that one of the grounds appears to be non-existent and as such the order of detention is bad in law. This submission also appears to be attractive but has no substance at all. In view of the Amending Act, 1984, it has been made clear by amendment that such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is/are (i) vague (ii) non-existent (iii) non-relevant (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever. Therefore, it is evident that even if one of the grounds is non-existent/invalid the order of detention cannot be held to be bad in law. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, we are of the view that nothing was produced/argued before us to hold that the ground for holding the order of detention is illegal. Hence, this application is meritless. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.