VIKRAM MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by Vikram Meena assailing the order of preventive detention dated 07.10.2017 passed by District Collector -cum- District Magistrate, Sikar, (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the respondent no.2') under Section 3(2) of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 (for short, 'the Act of 2006') and also order dated 15/16.11.2017 passed by the State Government under Section 13(1) of the Act of 2006 affirming the aforesaid order of preventive detention for a period of one year i.e. from 09.10.2017 to 08.10.2018.

(2.) Shri Suresh Dhenwal, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that the impugned orders cannot be sustained being contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2006 and the material on record and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Whatever material was taken into consideration by the competent authority for passing the impugned order was not sufficient to hold that he was a dangerous person and that by virtue of his activities, he has become a menace to the society inasmuch as was acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of the public order. Learned counsel referred to various offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as detailed out in the memo of reply to writ petition filed by the respondent. He submitted that these offences are petty and minor in nature, for example, the alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 283, 323, 324, 327, 332, 341, 353, 358, 365, 379, 380, 382, 395, 397 398, 427, 452, 457, 458, 461, 504 and 511 of the IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. The only solitary case which can be said to be of somewhat serious was one under Sections 395, 397, 365 and 398 IPC arising out of F.I.R. No.444/2011 registered with Police Station Bassi, District Jaipur. It is argued that in six cases out of twenty cases, the petitioner has already been acquitted and rest are pending trial. Most of the cases are of theft and are not grave enough to justify exercise of extraordinary power of preventive detention by the respondent State. The petitioner cannot be said to be "habitual" offender within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act of 2006, as he has not been convicted in a single case. Earliest criminal case was registered against the petitioner on 15.02006 and the last one has been registered on 18.02.2017. This has happened only because once the petitioner was booked by the police for petty offence of theft, now he is being implicated in all those cases where the police fails to nab the real culprit. For this reason alone, the police has drawn proceedings against the petitioner under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for binding him to maintain peace. The petitioner has not been convicted in a single case. The offence of the petitioner cannot be said to be the offence against the society inasmuch as these kind of offences can be taken care of by ordinary laws as they pertain to law and order situation of the area and the offences are not such which may disturb the peace of the society.