NIZAMUDDIN @ MD. NIZAMUDDIN SIDDIQUE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by respondent No.2. District Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj dated 04th of July 2012 which is Annexure -3 to the memo of petition, whereby the order has been passed under Section 12(2) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 and petitioner has been detained under preventive detention.

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner submitted that looking to the order at Annexure -3 petitioner is not falling within the definition of Section 2(d) of the antisocial element, because as per Section 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, order of detention can be passed when petitioner is an antisocial element. Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that several cases which are pending under the Arms Act, but none of them have been converted into conviction. These cases are not only pending but few of them for example serial Nos. 2 and 3 of the impugned order, in which final report has been filed by the police. Thus, there is thoroughly non application of mind by the detention authority and hence also the order of detention, which is at Annexure -3, be quashed and set aside. Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that several other irregularities committed by the detention authority in passing the order of detention. He has also submitted that for these reasons, detention order passed by the District Magistrate can be quashed by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision reported in 1991 B.B.C.J. 159.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby quash and set aside the order passed by District Magistrate Palamau at Daltonganj dated 4th July, 2012, which is at Annexure -3, to the memo of petition for the following facts and circumstances.