KUDRATULLAH ALIAS KUDRAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the petitioner's detention under Section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.

(2.) The petitioner had been detained by the District Magistrate, Singhbhum by order dated 1-6-1985. That detention came to an end on 3-5-1986. That detention did not bring about any change in the petitioner. He committed offences on three dates after release from detention. District Magistrate, Singhbhum, therefore, passed fresh order of deteation on 4-7-1988. The ground for detention was an incident which took place on 26-5-1988 at about 9.30 p.m. in the town of Jamshedpur. On that day the petitioner fired and killed Bijo Agrawal, a shop keeper in Jugsalai market area. Killing of Bijo Agrawal sent a shock wave resulting in closure of shops. On the following day i. e., on 27-5-1988 the shop did not re-open out of fear and terror of the petitioner. The killing by the petitioner created communal tension between Hindus and Muslims. In order to restore public order, prohibitory order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued. Additional police force was deputed to pre empt further communal riots. Jamshedpur has a history of communal tension. This was the sole ground for passing the order of detention. In the order of detention, the District Magistrate mentioned two other incidents in which the petitioner had taken part. One was an incident about the commission of offences under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code which took place on 3-7-1986 within Jugsalai Police Station. Another related to an incident for which a case under Sections 341/448/323/324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted. Seeing the history of the petitioner and his latest act of murder, the impugned detention order was passed on 4-7-1988. It may be mentioned that when the detention order was passed, the detenu was in jail in connection with some substantive case, may be the case in relation to the murder of Bijo Agrawal. Seeing the activities of the detenu the impugned detention order was passed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the detention on various grounds. The first submission is that only one case i. e. Jugsalai P. S. Case No. 87 dated 26-5-1988 under Section 302 of the Indian Penat Code and 27 of the Arms Act having been mentioned in the detention order, the petitioner could not be held to be a habitual offender.