AMALESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the petitioner was in jail custody at Jamshedpur in connection with Sakshi P.S. case no. 240 of 2007, he was served with an order dated 20.10.2008 (Annexure 1) passed under section 12 (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, respondent no.4 on 21.10.2008 along with the grounds of detention whereby and whereunder the order of detention was passed for a period of 12 months. Subsequently, the State Government, vide its order dated 1.11.2008 (Annexure 2) approved the order of detention in exercise of power conferred under section 12(3) of the Act, copy of which was also served upon the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner filed his representation on 20.11.2008 before the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent no.2 with a prayer to revoke the order of detention which was rejected by the State Government, vide order dated 2.12.2008 (Annexure 4). Thereafter the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government in exercise of power under section 21(1) and 22 of the Act, vide its order dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure 5), copy of which was served upon the petitioner and under this situation, the order of detention effective for a period of 12 months as contained in memo no.1994/Law/C dated 20.10.2008 (Annexure 1) and also the order dated 17.12.2008 under which the order of detention has been confirmed by the State Government were sought to be quashed on various grounds.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, respondent no.4 while passing the order of detention in terms of section 12(2) of the Act has based his satisfaction on four grounds and besides that, three grounds, namely, Sidgora P.S. case no.60 of 2004, Sonari P.S. case no.12 of 2004 and Sakchi P.S. case no.14 of 2003 have also been taken into consideration but in those cases, the petitioner had already been acquitted of the charges and so far other four cases are concerned, one of them is Sidhgora P.S. case no.49 of 2007 which is an outcome of business rivalry whereas in Sakchi P.S. case no.240 of 2007, the petitioner has never been alleged directly to have committed an offence of murder and the third one is a simple case of assault and as such, the petitioner can never be said to be anti -social element in terms of section 2(d) of the Act and moreover, the act of the petitioner was never prejudicial to the public order or tranquility and as such, the order of detention can certainly be said to have been passed without application of mind which proposition gets strengthened further from the fact that the detaining authority also took into consideration those cases in which the petitioner had already been acquitted and as such, this ground alone is sufficient to hold the order of detention to be bad.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that while the detention order was passed, the petitioner was in jail custody and as such, the order of detention should have been passed in compelling necessity satisfaction/reason of which should have been recorded by the respondent but since it is not there in the impugned order, it vitiates the order of detention.