RAJENDRA MAHTO @ KARGIL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner has initially challenged the order dated 30th July, 2010 (Annexure-1), a detention order passed against the writ petitioner (wrongly) under Section 12(3) of th Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand, as well-' as the order of confirmation passed by the State Government dated 3rd August, 2t)10 (Annexure-2), confirming the said order dated 30th July, 2010 and then challenged the another order dated 7th August, 2010 by filing interlocutory application in this petition, by which another order of detention for same petitioner was passed under Section 12(2) of the Crimes Control Act, 1981 dated 3rd August, 2010 was eonfirmed. However, according to the petitioner, he was not aware of the order dated 3rd August, 2010 passed by the District Magistrate for petitioner's detention under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1981. According to-the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner came to know about another order of petitioner's detention dated 3.8.2010 only when the counter- affidavit has been filed that the earlier order dated 30th July, 2010 passed by the same District Magistrate was withdrawn vide order dated 3rd August, 2010.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 30th July, 2010 is absolutely illegal and has been passed without application of mind of taking into consideration the absolutely irrelevant facts and by ignoring the relevant facts, which is apparent from the order dated 30th July, 2010 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the order and pointed out that the authority proceeded under assumption that the petitioner was accused in the cases of robbery, dacoity, theft and extortion and robbery, dacoity, theft and extortion were his main profession. The authority was also of the view that the petitioner has created terror to the passengers of public and private vehicles day to day with arms and many times people in that area have been badly attacked; where no single case has been registered against the Stitioner for committing of robbery, dacoity, eft or extortion, which is clear from the list of the cases given in the same Order, which have been registered in the various sections of IPC, which also have been mentioned in the order. It is also submitted that not only that, that the order dated 30th July. 2010 was passed under wronfe provisions of law ie. Section 12(3) of the Crime Control Act, 1981 but it proceeded on absolutely wrong facts vitiating the order. The State Government also without application of mind, even confirmed the order dated 30th July, 2010 vide order dated 3rd August, 2010 (Annexure-2). The State Government also, though passed the order on 3rd August 2010, then that order was withdrawn by the another order dated 7th August, 2010 and before that on the same day on which the State Government passed the order dated 3rd August, 2010, another order was passed by the District Magistrate, copy of which is Annexure-A by which only it has been conveyed that because of the inadvertent mistake in place of Section 12(2) of the Act of 1991, Section 12(3) of the Act of 1981 has been typed, therefore, the order dated 30th July, 2010 may be read as amended by inserting 12(2) in place of 12(3). At one place, a correction has been made in the order dated 30th July, 2010 by order dated 3rd August, 2010 by the District Magistrate himself and on the same day another order of detention was passed by the same District Magistrate, copy of which has been placed by the respondents as Annexure-B. Inspite of making correction in the earlier dated 30th July, 2b 10, as referred above, altogether new grounds have been mentioned in Annexure-B the another order dated 3rd August, 2010 for detention of the petitioner. In this Annexure-B, subsequently passed order dated 3rd August, 2010, the District Magistrate has described the petitioner as dreaded sub-zonal Commander of the banned LWE Organization JPC and proceeded under assumption that the petitioner was terrorizing the area and the people for levy and has been responsible for multiple murders in the area in striving to establish an illegal power hegemony and to challenge the law of the land. After giving these reasons, again the description of the same cases, which have been mentioned in the earlier order dated 30th July, 2010, have been given. In none of the case of murder, petitioner is involved is apparent from the order dated'3rd August, 2010, Annexure-B itself which was passed on the pretext to correct the wrong section mentioned in earlier order, passed by non-application of mind by the authority of the level of the District Magistrate and the petitioner himself has been branded the accused of multiple murder and not as mastermind or conspirator. Such subsequent order dated 3rd August, 2010 also got its confirmation by the State Government vide order dated 7th August, 2010 and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the orders passed by these authority are passed without application of mind and after considering absolutely irrelevant facts, therefore deserve to be set aside and the petitioner's detention may be declared illegal.