Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 348 (PAT)

Jitendra Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-14

J.N.SINGH, NARAYAN ROY

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This habeas corpus application is directed against order dated 27.08.2006, issued vide memo no. 706, as contained in annexure 1, detaining the petitioner under the provisions of sec. 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act"). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was detained only on two grounds, as shown in order of detention- one being Bettiah Town Police Station Case No. 125 of 2005 dated 08.04.2005 under Sections 365 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, subsequently converted into under Sections 364 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Bettiah Town Police Station Case No. 293 of 2005 dated 02.08.2005 for offences under Sections 387/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act. It is further submitted that after detention of the petitioner he was acquitted in Bettiah Town Police Station Case No. 293 of 2005 on 10.11.2006 and so far Bettiah Town Police Case No. 125 of 2005 is concerned, he is not the named accused in the first information report, but subsequently chargesheet has been filed against him. It is also contended that the grounds of detention have also been shown as backgrounds by way of criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the authorities, in that view of the matter, mechanically issued the order of detention without application of mind and not even finding a case disturbing public tranquillity. 4. One set of counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, the State of Bihar and the Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar. No counter affidavit, however has been filed on behalf of the detaining authority, the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. It is true that the order of detention subsequently was confirmed by the Advisory Board and approved by the State Government, as required under Sections 19 and 21 of the Act, but to us it appears that the grounds of detention were not sufficient at the face of it to make out a case of public order for the sake of detention of the petitioner. In Bettiah Town Police Station Case No. 125/05 the petitioner was not even named in the first information report, though subsequently chargesheet was filed against him, but nowhere it as stated that the act so committed by the petitioner was prejudicial to maintenance of public order. 6. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons, aforementioned, the order of detention is not sustainable. 7. In the result, this application is allowed, order impugned detaining the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case.