BHOLA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the detention order dated 4-6-2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Bokaro, which was confirmed by the State Government dated 14-6-2002 and also the order dated 13-7-2002 confirming the order after rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this application is that the petitioner was arrested by the Police of Bihar with the help of the police of Goa from Panjim on 27-7-2000 from Machali Bazar, Goa and thereafter he was brought to Jharkhand. The petitioner made a confessional statement before the police on 29-7-2000 and he confessed that he got certain murder committed at Bokaro which had taken place on 27-5-1999 and he also confessed the incident regarding murder of Ashish Das and on 8-8-1998 of Ajay Agrawal. Those cases were lodged against unknown persons. T.I. Parade was not held and the petitioner was released on bail by the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. It is also alleged that several owners of the City Centre had been served with certain letters asking for extortion from them of money and for which FIR was also lodged. The petitioner is said to have created extreme panic amongst the businessman and shop owners of the City Centre, Bokaro by activities of his gang. On the basis of which, the learned Magistrate passed the order dated 4-6-2002 detaining the petitioner under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act (Bihar Act 7/1981) read with Notification No. 1635 dated 19th March, 2002 of Jharkhand. The petitioner had also filed a representation petition denying the allegation which was rejected by the State Government. Hence, this application.

(3.) Mr. T.R. Bajaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned District Magistrate, Bokaro committed error in passing the order dated 4-6-2002 detaining the petitioner under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, as there is no specific or direct evidence against the petitioner for the alleged offence as well as the petitioner has been residing/staying now at Goa and, therefore, his involvement in those cases does not arise as well as those FIRs were registered against unknown and there had been no submission of charge- sheet till the arrest of the petitioner indicating that there is no clue whatsoever against the petitioner . It is further argued that only after the confessional statement made before the police by the petitioner, the allegations have been made and the documents have also been created as well as the statement of the petitioner was not recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr. P.C. and, therefore, the confessional statement recorded before the police has got no substance. It is further submitted that the petitioner was tortured by the police and his signature had been taken on certain blank papers as well as he had been forced to write something and therefore, question of his writing those letters does not arise and those letters had been manufactured after his arrest. The learned counsel also placed his reliance of the case of Suresh Budhermal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 1 East Cr C 78.