BIRENDRA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the entire proceedings of C.C.A. Case No. 5 of 2002 including the orders dated 19-8-2000, 3-9-2000 and 20-8-2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara as well as approval was made by the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Home initiated under S. 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) It is stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara requested the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara to send a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara to detain the petitioner under S. 12 of the Act and thereafter the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara recommended accordingly for detention of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said recommendation, the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara by order dated 1-8-2002 passed the order of detention of the petitioner under S.12(2) of the Act and forwarded the said recommendation to the State Government, Department of Home for approval. Thereafter the Government of Jharkhand by Letter No. 6-02 (APA)/2002-4000 dated 12-8-2002 (Annexure 5) directed the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara (respondent No.3) to make available the documents relating to the detention of the petitioner and the State Government by Letter no. 602 (APA) 2002-4048 16-8-2002 (Annexure 6) refused to approve the detention of the petitioner on the ground that no documents whatsoever as sought for was made available relating to the detention of the petitioner. It is further claimed that again on the same set of grounds/allegations, the sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara (respondent No. 5) requested the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara (respondent- No.4) to place the proposal for detention of the petitioner. Again the respondent No.4 recommended for detention of the petitioner on the basis of which the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara (respondent No.3) passed the order of detention on 19-8-2002 on the same set of allegations without there being fresh facts /grounds after rejection of the earlier orders of detention. Later on, the State Government by its order contained in Memo No. 6 (APA)-04(APA)/2002-4389 dated 3-9-2002 (Annexure 13) approved the order of detention of the petitioner passed by respondent No.3 on 19-8-2002 (Annexure 11) after expiry of the stipulated period as laid down under the provision of the Act. The petitioner had also filed his representation before the Secretary, Government of Jharkhand on 15-9-2002 (Annexure 14) through the Superintendent of Jail, Jamtara which has not yet been disposed of or no order whatsoever has been communicated to the petitioner thereon. The approval made by the State Government after 30-8-2002 even in respect of second detention on the same and similar grounds is illegal which has been done beyond the stipulated period of 12 days as required under the Act and, therefore, the order of detention of the petitioner is in complete violation of the mandatory provision of S. 12(2) of the Act and the order of detention cannot be sustained in any way as the second detention has been made with sole purpose to harass the petitioner on the same and similar grounds/allegations as well as no any chit of paper, such as, first information reports relating to the cases have ever been served upon the petitioner. Therefore, the order of detention is fit to be quashed.

(3.) Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara (respondent No.3) stating therein the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara (respondent No.4) vide Letter No. 51 dated 25-7-2002 requested that the petitioner should be detained under the Act. Accordingly, a detailed criminal history of the petitioner was submitted and on perusal of the long list of crimes committed by the petitioner in past, the order of detention was passed as the petitioner was an anti- social element and he is a habitual offender. It is further stated that the Superintendent of Police again submitted a report giving fresh ground of detention of the petitioner as the earlier detention order was revoked due to non approval of the State Government and on the fresh grounds, it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent breach of public peace and order and, accordingly, the order was passed. It is further submitted that only after being fully satisfied with the report of the Superintendent of Police along with the fresh grounds, it was found necessary to detain the petitioner under S. 12(2) of the Act and thereafter the order of detention of the petitioner was passed which was dully approved by the State of Jharkhand, Department of Home.