Sudhir Sharma v. State Of Bihar — 1989 DIGILAW 130 (PAT)

Judgment Uday Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner has been detained under Sec.12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act (hereinafter called the Act.) The present application is for quashing his detention by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 2. The facts leading to his detention, which have been mentioned as grounds thereof, were that on 13.5.1988 an incident took place near village Manpur, P.S. Chandankeyari in the district of Dhanbad. The incident was that on 13.5.88 one Jaipati Thakur wanted to board a bus bearing No. BHG-9169. He was prevented from entering the bus by three persons. Those three persons assaulted him resulting in Jaipati Thakurs falling down. The bus had just started moving on when it was commanded by the miscreants to stop it. The petitioner (the detenu) along with his associates got down from the bus and started brutally assaulting Jaipati Thakur. Seeing the promiscuous beating of Jaipati Thakur, One Hari Thakur, who was sitting in a nearby shop tried to intervene. The miscreants which included the petitioner then started assaulting Hari Thakur. They assaulted him. They also passed a lathi on to his chest. Hari Thakur received grievous injuries. He cried for life. That set a commotion, shops closed down, passengers of the bus started crying. The assailants then fled away. Hari Thakur was carried to a village Doctor where he was declared dead. The beating of Jaipati Thakur took place because of his refusal to pay Rangdari tax to the notorious gangsters and Rangdars of the locality which included the detenu as well. On those facts, Chandankeyari P.S. Case No. 39/88 dated 13.5.1988 under Sec.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted. That was the ground for his detention. 3. The history of the petitioner is that he was accused in another case, namely, Chandankeyari P.S. Case No. 53/84 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 353, 373 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code etc. Charge-sheet was submitted in the case. In 1985 he took part in another occurrence which led to the institution of Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) P.S. Case No. 127/85 under Sec.387 of the Indian Penal Code. In 1986 he took part in an occurrence which led to the instiution of Chandankeyari P.S. Case No. 44/86 under Sec. 452, 332, 506/34 of the Indian penal Code. The detenu has been charge-sheeted in all the three cases. In 1986 he took part in an occurrence which led to the instiution of Chandankeyari P.S. Case No. 44/86 under Sec. 452, 332, 506/34 of the Indian penal Code. The detenu has been charge-sheeted in all the three cases. These three cases were mentioned to show that the petitioner was an anti social element. 4. It appears that the petitioner had been detained earlier in 1986. On what grounds and on what facts he had been detained has not been stated by the petitioner but annexure-4 to this application shows that the District Magistrate by order dated 19.1.1987 had directed the Jail Superintendent to release the petitioner, if he was not required in any other case consequent upon his detention having been struck down in Cr.W.J.C. No. 107 of 1986(R) disposed of on 13.1.1987. It appears that after his release the petitioner committed the act which led to the institution of Chandankeyari P.S. Case No. 39/88 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus the moment he is released, he starts his orgy of violence. In the present case the murder took place in broad day light in the town near a bus stand. 5. Before considering the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it must be explained what is Rangdar and Rangdari. This word is peculiar to this State, specially coal belt of Dhanbad, where the writ of Mafias and not of the government rules the day. Rangdar is a person who extorts from individuals on pain of assault and threat of assault. Any body declining to pay is beaten up and some times killed. This extortion has no legal basis but is a sheer vegabondism. 6. The first submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the incident which formed the ground for detention Impinged only upon law and order and that public order was not disturbed. This Court in its writ jurisdiction is not called upon to test the correctness of facts. The detention order states that the instant occurrence created panic in the area and the public order was disturbed. Nearby shopkeepers closed their shops. Hari Thakur was Killed not because of the demand of Rangdari from him or on refusal to pay but because he had dared to plead for Jaipati Thakur. This shows the manner in which Gundas of the area enforce their writ. Nearby shopkeepers closed their shops. Hari Thakur was Killed not because of the demand of Rangdari from him or on refusal to pay but because he had dared to plead for Jaipati Thakur. This shows the manner in which Gundas of the area enforce their writ. Such acts are bound to affect public order. In fact, arrival alone of such persons in the market creates commotion. In may view, the ground for detention has detention has direct nexus with publish order. This submission, therefore, is rejected accordingly. 7. Secondly, it was submitted that only one ground had been given for the detention. From one incident it could not be inferred that the petitioner was an anti social element and, therefore, his detention was illegal. In terms of Sec.2(d) of the Act; a person is said to be anti social element when he either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offence punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Since the petitioner is alleged to have committed only one act, the cannot be held to be an anti-social element. Thus contended learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. I regret, I have some difficulty in acceding to this submission. It is now well established that a solitary incident may also disturb public order which may attract the preventive detention law, The facts mentioned as back grounds could very well be used to establish that the detenu was an anti social element. From the narration of facts, it will be appreciated that the petitioner committed offences under the Indian Penal Code in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. There is thus a clear link between the incidents and his activities. There is a proximity between the incident betraying a nature and propensity of committing offences. It cannot be denied that the petitioner was one, who habitually committed offences which are punishable, under the Indian Penal Code. It Is obvious, therefore, that the petitioner was an anti social element. True it is that the incidents were of two years, three years, four years earlier to the incident which brought about his detention. It cannot be denied that the petitioner was one, who habitually committed offences which are punishable, under the Indian Penal Code. It Is obvious, therefore, that the petitioner was an anti social element. True it is that the incidents were of two years, three years, four years earlier to the incident which brought about his detention. They may not be used as the ground for detention on the ground that they would be stale grounds, but there can be no difficulty in looking to those facts to consider whether the petitioner was an anti social element. If a persons has been committing assaults, murders etc. year after year, the inference must clearly be that he is an anti social element. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the assumption that the back ground facts mentioned in the grounds of detention could not be looked into, submitted that no distinction can be made between the ground and background. He, therefore, submitted that the facts mentioned as back ground were also grounds for the detention. Since necessary documents in regards to back grounds facts have not been furnished, their detention is vitiated on account of denial of supply of papers in connection with these substantive cases. I regret, this submission is ill founded. The petitioner was furnished copies of the first information report of all the three cases which have been mentioned as the background facts, namely those of Chandankeyari P.S. Case No. 53/84, Jorapokhar (Sudamdih) P.S. Case No. 127/85 and Chandankeyari P.S. Case No. 44/86. It is thus clear that even if the background facts are taken to be the grounds for detention, the law had been fully complied with in regard to those grounds as well by the District Magistrate by furnishing copies of the first information reports of those cases to the petitioner. The petitioner has not averred in this application that he had not been served copies of the first information report of the cases of 1984, 1985 and 1986. In paragraph 10 of the petition it has been stated that those were old and stale cases and, therefore, they should not be looked into but no grievance was made that copies of necessary documents had not been supplied. In paragraph 10 of the petition it has been stated that those were old and stale cases and, therefore, they should not be looked into but no grievance was made that copies of necessary documents had not been supplied. Even though it has not been stated in the petition, I called for the file of this detenu from the Secretary of the Advisory Board constituted under Sec.12 of the Act. The file shows that petitioner had been supplied copies of the first information reports of all the four cases which constituted the grounds and backgrounds. The petitioner suppressed from the Court the fact that relevant documents relating to backgrounds had been supplied to him. It is well known that suppression of facts disentitles a person to issuance of facts. In my view, therefore, there is no substance in the submission that the facts mentioned as background facts were irrelevant and, therefore, the detention on only one ground was un-sustainable. I see no merit in this submission. It is rejected accordingly. 10. Thirdly, it was cantoned that the detention order was vitiated as it has been ordered without taking into account the fact that the earlier detention had been quashed by Ranchi Bench of this Court. That constituted non-application of mind to a relevant fact. I regret, I see no substance in this submission as well. There is no substance for the reason that the earlier detention was quashed, one does not know on what grounds, in relation to facts prior to January, 1987. The present detention is for an act committed in May, 1988. The quashing of earlier detention, was. therefore, an irrelevant fact. In fact it proves conclusively that the detenu is such an anti-social element that the moment his detention was quashed by the High Court, he resorted to another murder in broad day light in the heart of the city. In my view, therefore, the facts that the detaining authority had not mentioned in the detention order that his earlier detention had been quashed, the present detention does not suffer from any infirmity. The decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Avtar Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. -- relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was a decision on its own special facts and cannot be applied to the present case. The decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Avtar Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. -- relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was a decision on its own special facts and cannot be applied to the present case. In my view, therefore, the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is ill founded and must be rejected. 11. In the case of Smt. Asha Keshavrao Bhosale V/s. Union of India and Anr. -- it was held that satisfaction under the preventive detention law is subjective satisfaction and it is not for a court to test the adequacy on the material on which satisfaction is reached. It must, however, be conceded that the District Magistrate is not the ultimate authority and if there is no rational nexus between the activities of the detenu and detention, the High Court would certainly strike it down but if there is relevant material, the High Court would refrain from Interfering in the matter. If the satisfaction of the detaining authority has been reached on bona fide basis, there is case for quashing of the detention. 12. Considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner was an anti social element. There was material before the District Magistrate to order his detention. The grounds were not stale nor was there any procedural infimity in effecting the detention. The application, therefore, lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.