Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1122 (PAT)

Shiv Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar

2014-11-12

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2014
ORDER : DHARNIDHAR JHA, J. The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph 9 of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. By Annexure-1, which is a notice issued by the District Magistrate, Madhubani on 22.3.2014 and served upon the petitioner, the petitioner was directed to appear before him and to show-cause as to why an order as per the provision of Bihar Control of Crimes Act should not be made to detain him after holding him an anti social element. The notice was in six paragraphs; the first two paragraphs mentioning two cases registered by Andharathadhi Police Station. What was the offence for which Andharathadhi P. S. Case No. 385 of 2014 was registered is not indicated in paragraph 2 of the notice and the offences for which the first case Andharathadhi P. S. Case No. 68 of 2012 was registered were under Sections 188/324 IPC and 3/ 4 of Explosive Substance Act. Besides the above material facts, as regards the basis for issuing the notice so as to considering declaring the petitioner as an anti social element, there were general allegations, as may appear from paragraph 3, that the petitioner had suspicious movements and activities and was keeping company with bad and anti social elements and on that account was frightening the people of the society, as a result of which, they were fearful and that fear was looming large in their minds. As regards the notice to appear, there is some space left in paragraph 5 of it so as to filling in the date and time of appearance fixed by the authority. But curiously the space was not filled up so as to enabling the petitioner to decide as to when and at which time he was required to appear before the District Magistrate. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State, we must fairly record, was not happy with the instructions which he had received and was fairly conceding that the instances which were the grounds for issuing the notice also did not carry well with him as regards the application of law for declaring a person a habitual offender or an antisocial element. However, the learned counsel submitted that he was required to verify as to whether indeed no date and time was filled up in column no. However, the learned counsel submitted that he was required to verify as to whether indeed no date and time was filled up in column no. 5 of the notice. 5. We assume that the official record does contain some date and time. But, that is of no consequence because the copy of the notice which was served upon the petitioner and which has been placed before us as part of this petition does not bear any time nor does it bear any date as to when the petitioner was to appear before the District Magistrate, Madhubani. The date and time for appearance have to be communicated to the proposed detenue so that he could respond to the allegation on that date and at that particular time. It is not an official formality which has to be observed; it is a legal requirement which has to be complied with. If the date and time has not been mentioned in the notice, then it is vague and vagueness of the notice is sufficient to quash it in its entirety. We, accordingly, quash the notice by allowing the present writ petition. 6. We are happy we could at least find a counsel appearing for the State who was conceding that there could not be sufficient factual data justifying issuing the notice. We record our appreciation of the submission of the learned counsel for the State and considering his submission, we direct that the two cases could not be the ground for issuing another notice in future to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.