SURESH NAYAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order contained in Annexure-2 to this application dated 1-9-2001 by which, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, in exercise of the power under S. 22(1)(2) of the Bihar Crime Control Act, 1981, has directed the detention of the petitioner in Jail till 20-7-2002.

(2.) The petitioner was remanded in jail in Bagodar P.S. Case No. 159/1999 under S. 414, IPC in which he was granted bail by the Court below and he was also implicated in Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 323/1999 in which he was granted bail by this Court, Subsequently, it is alleged that he was implicated as an accused in another case but in all those cases he was granted bail, but to defeat the judicial orders, the Deputy Secretary, vide order dated 16-7-2001 passed an order for his detention under the aforesaid Act for three months confirming the order of the District Magistrate dated 5-7-2001. That period of detention was further extended for a period till 20-7-2002, by the Deputy Secretary of the Government. It is further submitted that though in the earlier report issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the District Magistrate had passed the order for three months' detention on the materials against, which was extended further till 20-7-2002 and in that order, Annexure-Z, no reason or cause his been stated and the respondent-State confirmed the order in a mechanical way which is not sustainable in law. It transpires that on 5-7-2001 the District Magistrate, Hazaribagh, has also passed an order for the detention of the petitioner, which is Annexure-3. The petitioner filed representation before the respondent-authority and stated these facts, clearly intimating that the cases referred to in the detention order were not correct because absolutely there was no evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. These representations are at Annexure-4 and 4/1. It is further stated that in Bagodar P.S. Case No. 159/1999 dated 31-8-99 he was not named but his name was subsequently added for the purpose of false implication. So far Gorhar P.S. Case No. 14/1998 under S. 379, IPC is concerned, petitioner's case is that he was not named and no chargesheet was submitted against him but in the detention report the police wrongly stated that he was involved in that case also. The FIR of Gorhar P.S. Case No. 14/98 has been annexed as Annexure-6. With regard to Gorhar P.S. Case No. 27/1998 under S. 379, IPC, it has been submitted by the petitioner that he was not named in the FIR but subsequently charge-sheet was submitted implicating the petitioner with ulterior motive. The FIR of this case is Annexure-7. With regard to Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 323 of 1999 under S. 395, IPC, it has been submitted by the petitioner that he was not named in the FIR but subsequently chargesheet was submitted implicating the petitioner due to ulterior motive. It is further stated that the petitioner is not an accused in Gorhar P.S. Case No. 17/1998. The FIR of these two cases, Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 323/99 and Gorhar P.S. Case No. 17/98 are Annexure-6 and 8/1. It is the further case of the petitioner that in Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 323/99 he was granted bail by this Court and in Gorhar Bagodar P.S. the petitioner was granted bail by the trial Court itself.

(3.) The grounds on which the detention order have been challenged that (i) has been passed without verifying the facts and without looking to the documents which are the basis of passing of the order (ii) it has been passed only to defeat the judicial orders as the petitioner was released on bail by the different Courts and (iii) as the petitioner does not come within the purview of S. 2 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, the detention order is beyond the ambit of S. 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act.