MINTU KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially petitioner filed present writ application on 30.04.2012 for issuance of a direction commanding respondent no.2 to 5 for not involving him under Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, at the instance of respondent no.6. It is stated that respondent no.6 is Ward Commissioner and due to political rivalry she pressurised respondent no. 2 to 5 for implicating the petitioner under Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. It appears that during pendency of main writ application an Interlocutory application, vide I.A. No. 834 of 2012,filed, wherein a prayer has been made for quashing of detention order dated 06.03.2012 as contained in memo no.672 passed by respondent no. 2. In the aforesaid I.A., petitioner prayed that further proceeding in the Court of C.J.M. Dhanbad be stayed. Another Interlocutory application bearing I.A.No. 726/2013 filed praying therein that entire proceeding in relation of C.O. Case no.26/2012 pending in the court of C.J.M. Dhanbad be quashed.

(2.) It is an admitted position that petitioner has not been arrested on the basis of impugned detention order. In the writ application, as well as in the I.A. petition, petitioner challenged the said order only on the ground that impugned order of detention was issued on the behest of respondent no. 6, who had political rivalry with the petitioner.

(3.) In the counter affidavit, it is stated that detention order was passed on 06.03.2012 and after knowing th same petitioner absconded, therefore, order of detention could not be executed. It is further stated that thereafter, as per provisions contained under Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, a notice issued in the official gazette as well as in the daily newspaper directing the petitioner to surrender, but inspite of that petitioner did not appear and/or surrender. Accordingly, matter reported to the C.J.M., Dhanbad under section 16 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 for initiating a proceeding and punishing him as per provisions contained under section 16 of the Act. Accordingly, C.J.M. Dhanbad vide order dated 28.04.2012 took cognizance against the petitioner.