Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 859 (PAT)

Alind Rai v. State Of Bihar

2007-05-01

J.N.SINGH, NARAYAN ROY

body2007
Judgment Narayan Roy and J.N.Singh JJ. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned A.A.G.1 for the State and considered the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. 2. The order detaining the petitioner under the provisions of section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) is under challenge. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was detained mainly on the grounds enumerated in the order of detention which, in no way, can be said to be the acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Learned counsel further submitted that it would be discernible from the order impugned itself that since there was likelihood of the petitioner being granted bail in the cases as referred as grounds, the order of detention was passed and. that too, without subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Learned counsel also submitted that so far as the cases reported against the petitioner which have been shown as grounds of detention are concerned, there does not appear to be close proximity and the detaining authority having considered the cases of law against the petitioner of the year 1999 and 2002 proceeded to detain him. 4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned A.A.G.1 on the contrary, submitted that the acts committed by the petitioner were very much prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which necessitated the authorities to pass the order ot detention against the petitioner as he was a terror in the locality. 5. It appears from the materials on record including the counter affidavits that the representation filed by the petitioner was disposed of expeditiously within a period of ten days. 6. So far as grounds of detention are concerned, the cases reported against the petitioner were of Bettiah P.S. Case No. 571 of 2002 for offences under Sections 302 & 120(B)/34 IPC. Bettiah P.S. Case No. 395 of 2005 for offences under Sections 384, 448, 353 & 504 IPC and lastly Bettiah RS. Case No. 306 of 2006 for offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 120 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. From the ground no. 3 pertaining to Bettiah RS. Bettiah P.S. Case No. 395 of 2005 for offences under Sections 384, 448, 353 & 504 IPC and lastly Bettiah RS. Case No. 306 of 2006 for offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 120 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. From the ground no. 3 pertaining to Bettiah RS. Case No. 571 of 2002, it appears that the offence was committed by the petitioner on 9.12.2002, whereas the detention order was passed in the month of November, 2006 and, thus, there does not appear to be close proximity with the offence committed by the petitioner and passing of the order of detention. So far as ground nos. 4 and 5 pertaining to cases of 2005 and 2006 are concerned, it appears that, in no way, the activities of the petitioner can be found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, rather these appear to be cases of individual activism. 7. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the State, however, tried to impress upon the Court that there is difference of degree in between the public order and law and order and owing to the criminal propensity and potentiality, the acts of the petitioner were found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, the order of detention need not be interfered with. 8. Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of detention was passed without recording the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to the extent that no details have been disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the detaining authority as to what weighed before him to infer that the petitioner was likely to come out from jail, so his detention was necessary. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the detaining authority, nowhere it is stated that the petitioner had applied for bail and copies thereto were served to the Public Prosecutor. In absence of all these materials, the detaining authority, in no way, can be said to have been satisfied that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. 10. So far as grounds of detention are concerned, in our opinion, it shows that the acts committed by the petitioner, in no way, were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 11. 10. So far as grounds of detention are concerned, in our opinion, it shows that the acts committed by the petitioner, in no way, were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 11. It is not the case that in full public view, with a view to terrorise the people of the locality, the petitioner committed the offence, rather on scrutiny of materials on record it would appear that these were the cases of individual activism which, in no way, would have been responsible to disturb the public tranquility. 12. In view of the findings aforementioned, the order impugned detaining the petitioner, in our opinion, is not sustainable in law. 13. In the result, this application is allowed, order impugned is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other matter.