SMT. RESHMA W/O SHRI SIRAJUDDIN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, SECRETARIAT, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this habeas corpus petition, Smt. Reshma, mother of detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya, has challenged the order dated 03.02.2017 (Annex.2) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, order dated 09.02.2017 (Annex.3) passed by the State Government and order dated 07.03.2017 (Annex.4) passed by the State Government after confirmation of the detention order by the Advisory Board, wherein son of petitioner Sameer @ Pintiya was ordered to be detained under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti Social Actives Act, 2006 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2006'), for a period of one year w.e.f. 03.02.2017 to 02.02.2008.

(2.) As per facts of the case, upon report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East), Jodhpur, to the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur while exercising powers under Section 3 of the Act of 2006 pased an order on 03.02.2017, whereby detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya was detained. In pursuance of said order, the detenue Sameer @ Pintiya was arrested and copy of order along with reasons were supplied to him for making representation against the order passed under section 3 of the Act of 2006. The order dated 03.02.2017 was sent to the State Government for approval and the State Government approved the order of detention vide order dated 09.02.2017. The copy of the order of approval was made available to the detenue for making representation before the Advisory Board against the order of detention. The detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya, appeared before the Advisory Board and submitted his representation against the detention order but the Advisory Board after considering the fact of registration of number of criminal case and definition of "dangerous person" provided in the Act of 2006, confirmed the order of detention for maximum period given under the Act of 2006. After approval the State Government issued an order of detention for one year on 07.03.2017 whereby petitioner's son Sameer @ Pintiya was ordered to be detained for one year w.e.f. 03.02.2017 to 02.02.2018.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that orders of detention passed against the son of the petitioner, Sameer @ Pintiya are ex-facie illegal because all the orders have been passed without application of mind on the basis of false complaints submitted by the Deputy Commissioner Police (East), Jodhpur, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed. He further argued that there is no foundation to establish any ground to declare the detenue as dangerous person under the Act of 2006 on the basis of details contained in the complaint submitted by the respondent No.4, because out of 22 cases said to be registered against petitioner's son since 2002, the petitioner's son was acquitted in six cases and none of the cases registered against the detenue shows that petitioner's son, falls under the category of dangerous person. Therefore, in absence of any prevailing circumstances the order of detention is illegal and liable to be quashed.