DABLU MISHRA @ RANJIT MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for parties.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 dated 17th October, 2010.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner -submitted that the authorities relied upon live cases and petitioner has already been acquitted in three cases, out of five cases, and in two cases petitioner has been granted bail. It is also submitted that the order was passed on extraneous consideration of fact, which is apparent from the order itself as the authority considered about 34 cases and alleged that the petitioners's gang members were involved in those 34 cases, thereby the authority virtually held petitioner vicariously liable even in criminal cases, which is just contrary to the settled law that there cannot be vicarious criminal liability. It is also submitted that it appears that the authorities were impressed by the list of large number of cases provided to them and. therefore, passed that order. It is also stated that the authorities have also taken into consideration, even some reports recorded in the police station diary dated 22nd August, 2010 and 21st August. 2010. wherein it has been entered that the petitioner is involved in demanding ransom while he was in jail. It is further submitted that if the police authorities found the petitioner's involvement in demanding the ransom while he was in jail then they should have lodged the criminal case against the petitioner and without lodging criminal case how they can proceed to take a decision to detain the petitioner behind the baRs.