JUDGMENT : 1. In this habeas corpus petition, Smt. Reshma, mother of detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya, has challenged the order dated 03.02.2017 (Annex.2) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, order dated 09.02.2017 (Annex.3) passed by the State Government and order dated 07.03.2017 (Annex.4) passed by the State Government after confirmation of the detention order by the Advisory Board, wherein son of petitioner Sameer @ Pintiya was ordered to be detained under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti Social Actives Act, 2006 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2006’) for a period of one year w.e.f. 03.02.2017 to 02.02.2008. 2. As per facts of the case, upon report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East), Jodhpur, to the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur while exercising powers under Section 3 of the Act of 2006 passed an order on 03.02.2017, whereby detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya was detained. In pursuance of said order, the detenue Sameer @ Pintiya was arrested and copy of order along with reasons were supplied to him for making representation against the order passed u/s. 3 of the Act of 2006. The order dated 03.02.2017 was sent to the State Government for approval and the State Government approved the order of detention vide order dated 09.02.2017. The copy of the order of approval was made available to the detenue for making representation before the Advisory Board against the order of detention. The detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya, appeared before the Advisory Board and submitted his representation against the detention order but the Advisory Board after considering the fact of registration of number of criminal case and definition of "dangerous person" provided in the Act of 2006, confirmed the order of detention for maximum period given under the Act of 2006. After approval the State Government issued an order of detention for one year on 07.03.2017 whereby petitioner's son Sameer @ Pintiya was ordered to be detained for one year w.e.f. 03.02.2017 to 02.02.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that orders of detention passed against the son of the petitioner, Sameer @ Pintiya are ex-facie illegal because all the orders have been passed without application of mind on the basis of false complaints submitted by the Deputy Commissioner Police (East), Jodhpur, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that orders of detention passed against the son of the petitioner, Sameer @ Pintiya are ex-facie illegal because all the orders have been passed without application of mind on the basis of false complaints submitted by the Deputy Commissioner Police (East), Jodhpur, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed. He further argued that there is no foundation to establish any ground to declare the detenue as dangerous person under the Act of 2006 on the basis of details contained in the complaint submitted by the respondent No. 4, because out of 22 cases said to be registered against petitioner's son since 2002, the petitioner's son was acquitted in six cases and none of the cases registered against the detenue shows that petitioner's son, falls under the category of dangerous person. Therefore, in absence of any prevailing circumstances the order of detention is illegal and liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that most of the cases were registered on false story of complainant against the detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya. The order of detention has been passed in mechanical manner, which is absolutely established from the fact that out of 22 cases registered against the detenue since 2002 to 2016, no action was taken by the respondents under the Act of 2006 at the relevant time and now action has been taken on the ground that detenue was acting in the manner i.e. adversely affecting public order. If a person is facing trial since 2002 in the cases based upon false allegations, then, obviously it cannot be said that detenue is dangerous person for which power u/s. 3 (2) of the Act of 2006 is required to be exercised. However, the Police Commissioner without application of mind only on the basis of number of cases registered against the detenue Sameer @ Pintiya, exercised its power under Section 3 (2) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. 5. While inviting our attention towards details of 22 cases, it is submitted that in one of the case registered on 10.04.2010 at Sadar Kotwali, though detenue was convicted for offence u/s 307/149 and 4/25 of Arms Act and sentenced for three years? RI was passed but the said judgment has already been challenged in appeal, in which sentence has been suspended. RI was passed but the said judgment has already been challenged in appeal, in which sentence has been suspended. In F.I.R. No. 51/2012 registered at Police Station Sadar Kotwali on 10.01.2009 u/s 307, 323, 342, 149, 427, 325, 147 and 148 of IPC, the case was disposed of after compromise. Similarly, in another case registered at the same police station u/s 323, 324, 334 IPC has already been decided on the basis of compromise on 20.06.2011. In another case registered at Police Station Sardapura, under Section 379 IPC, the matter was considered and decided by the trial court on the basis of compromise. In case registered at Sardarpura police station on 11.06.2012, that case was also decided on the basis of compromise. In two other cases registered on 30.08.2012 and 24.06.2013, the detenue was acquitted on the basis of compromise for offence u/s 376, 366, 336 (g) of IPC and in one case registered u/s 13 of R.P.G.O. Act at Police Station Basni fined Rs. 100/- fine was imposed against the detenue. 6. In view of above facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that though 22 cases were registered against the detenue in different police stations in Jodhpur city, but out of 22 cases, in six cases he was acquitted from the charges on compromise and in two cases though he was convicted but sentence has been suspended by the appellate court in one case. Therefore, looking to the nature of cases registered against the detenue, the order of detention passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur as well as by the State Government is not sustainable in law. 7. Lastly it is argued that question of liberty is involved in this case and as per facts in most of the cases, petitioner's son is facing trial and yet to be held guilty, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that case of detenue Sameer @ Pintiya falls under the category of dangerous person so as to take action under Section 3 of the Act of 2006, more so under the Constitution of India, there are fundamental right granted to the citizen for enjoying freedom, therefore, the orders impugned may kindly be quashed. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention towards two judgments in the case of Anil Nayak and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Ganpat Bano and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and submitted that in this case powers have wrongly been exercised by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, under Section 3 of the Act of 2006, therefore, the orders impugned may kindly be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General-cum-Government Advocate submitted before us that conduct of the detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya, is very bad because he has created panic atmosphere in the society and affected law and order situation adversely, therefore, due to registration of 22 cases against him, it was felt necessary by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur to exercise its power under Section 3 of the Act of 2006 to keep peace in the city. It is true that in some of the cases, detenue was acquitted from the charges on the basis of compromise but undisputedly at present near about 15 cases are pending trial against the detenue for commission of serious offences, therefore, the Police Commissioner and the State Government took decision to detain the son of the petitioner to maintain law and order situation in the society. 10. It is further submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate out of 22 cases, in the year 2016 four cases for the offence under IPC were registered against the detenue, and complaint has also been filed u/s 110 of Cr.P.C. against the detenue, in which last date of hearing was 16.02.2017, therefore, it cannot be said that action taken by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur is illegal or in contravention of any provisions of law because it is the duty of the police administration to maintain peace and law and order situation in the Jodhpur city in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act of 2006. On aforesaid grounds it is prayed that this habeas corpus petition may kindly be dismissed. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, first of all we have perused the list of the cases annexed with (Annex.1), which was considered by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur before passing the order of detention. On aforesaid grounds it is prayed that this habeas corpus petition may kindly be dismissed. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, first of all we have perused the list of the cases annexed with (Annex.1), which was considered by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur before passing the order of detention. The details of the cases registered against the petitioner's son are as follows: ifjf'k"V v ØŒ la[;k izŒlaŒ rkjh[k dk;eh /kkjk Fkkuk ¼tgka vfHk;ksx ntZ gqvk gks½ pktZ 'khV uEcj o fnukad tsŒ,QŒ uEcj U;k;ky; dk uke urhtk dksVZ dksVZ dsl dh fLFkfr o vkxkeh rkjh[k is'kh fnukad ist uaŒ 1 186 24-12-2008 341] 323] 427@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj dksrokyh 190@31-12-2008 350@13 ihlhih,uMhVh dksVZ iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 09-03-2017 1&37 2 14 20-01-2009 307] 323] 342] 149] 427] 325] 147] 148 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj dksrokyh 39@31-03-2009 51@12 Mhts dksVZ jkthukek fnuakd 29-11-2012 & 38&58 3 132 23-09-2009 341] 323@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj dksrokyh 119@29-09-2009 1923@11 ts,e uaŒ 3 jkthukek fnuakd 29-06-2011 & 59&66 4 136 27-09-2009 341] 323] 336 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj dksrokyh 123@30-09-2009 ,e,e uaŒ 3 iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 15-03-2017 67&98 5 61 10-04-2010 147] 323] 341] 325] 307] 149 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ o 4@25 vkElZ ,DV lnj dksrokyh 97@13-07-2010 505@10 ,Mhts uaŒ 4 ltk fnuakd 25-05-2015 3 lky dk dBksj dkjkokl & 99&139 6 100 24-06-2010 452] 323] 324] 332] 353] 307@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ o 4@15 vkElZ ,DV lnj dksrokyh 146@07-10-2010 4@15 ,lhts,e,e uaŒ 6 iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 18-04-2017 140&189 7 101 24-06-2010 452] 427@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ o 4@25 vkElZ ,DV lnj dksrokyh 147@07-10-2010 54@11 ,e,e uaŒ 8 iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 04-05-2017 190&222 8 131 29-08-2010 324] 307@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ o 4@25 vkElZ ,DV lnj dksrokyh 151@26-10-2010 201@15 ,lh,e,e uaŒ 6 iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 13-04-2017 223&255 9 237 08-09-2011 379 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ljnkjiqjk 236@26-12-2011 lhts,e jkthukek fnuakd 06-03-2012 256&265 10 78 10-06-2012 336] 147 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj dksrokyh 86@30-07-2012 151@13 ,lh,e,e uaŒ 6 iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 25-04-2017 266&294 11 123 11-06-2012 341] 323@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ljnkjiqjk 123@16-07-2012 264@12 lh,e,e jkthukek fnuakd 27-09-2012 & 295&305 12 148 30-08-2012 376] 342] 366] 376] 376th HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj dksrokyh 133@26-10-2012 10@13 ,Mhts efgyk mRihM+u izdj.k jkthukek fnuakd 26-06-2013 & 306&330 13 141 24-06-2013 147] 336] 323 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj dksrokyh 141@31-07-2013 884@13 ,lh,e,e uaŒ 6 jkthukek fnuakd 19-09-2013 & 331&344 14 185 02-08-2013 13 vkjŒihŒ thŒvksŒ ckluh 160@09-08-2013 143@13 ,e,e uaŒ 4 ltk fnuakd 18-11-2013 100 :i;s tqekZuk & 345&355 15 559 03-12-2013 392 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ mn; eafnj 499@13-12-2013 52@14 ,e,e uaŒ 3 iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 06-03-2017 356&367 16 45 10-02-2015 392] HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ljnkjiqjk 34@14-03-2015 61@15 ,lhts,e,e uaŒ 1 iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 21-02-2017 368&390 17 114 30-07-2015 4@25 vkElZ ,DV ukxkSjh xsV 110@06-08-2015 452@16 ,lhts,e ¼vkfFkZd vijk/k½ iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 03-04-2017 391&403 18 170 27-10-2015 341] 323@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj cktkj 177@30-11-2015 78@16 ,ts,e lhVh iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 17-02-2017 404&417 19 19 02-02-2016 307] 323] 341] 324@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj dksrokyh 32@31-03-2016 106@16 Mhts dksVZ iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 09-03-2017 418&440 20 43 25-03-2016 458] 324] 323] 384 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj dksrokyh 74@22-07-2016 271@16 ,e,e uaŒ 3 iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 03-03-2017 441&456 21 81 26-06-2016 147] 332] 353 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ lnj dksrokyh 88@22-09-2016 361@16 ,e,e uaŒ 3 iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 04-02-2017 457&474 22 50 10-09-201+6 394] 397] 324@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ o 4@25 vkElZ ,DV thvkjih tks/kiqj 24@17-10-2016 127@16 Mhts dksVZ iSfMax Vªk;y fnuakd 13-02-2017 475&498 12. Upon perusal of above details of the cases, it is revealed that number of cases were registered against the detenue for various serious offences punishable under the IPC viz. 376, 307, 397, 325, 323, 353, 307/34 IPC and under the Arms Act at different police stations of Jodhpur city. Out of 22 cases, six cases were decided after compromise including case registered against the detenue under Section 376, 366, 323/34, 336 and 323 of IPC and in two cases, detenue has been convicted for offence under Sections 307, 149 IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act and punishment with the sentence for three years? RI vide judgment dated 25.05.2015 and sentence passed against the detenue has been suspended by the appellate court and appeal is pending. In a case registered at Police Station Basni, for the offence u/s 13 of R.P.G.O. the detenue was held guilty and a fine of Rs. 100/- was imposed against him. It is also worthwhile to observe that a complaint under Gunda Act was filed against the detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya on 01.12.2010 and again on 09.12.2016, a complaint u/s 110 of Cr.P.C. and u/s 107 and 151 IPC was instituted against the detenue, wherein the detenue was bound down by the court to maintain the peace. 13. It is obvious from the record that after recording satisfaction upon criminal cases registered against the detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya, the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, passed the order for detention while exercising power under Section 3 of the Act of 2006 and sent to the State Government for approval, the State Government approved the order of detention and placed the before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board confirmed the order of detention after providing opportunity of hearing to the detenue on 23.02.2017. After confirmation of the order, detention order was passed on 07.03.2017 for the period commencing from 03.02.2017 to 02.02.2018. 14. The Advisory Board confirmed the order of detention after providing opportunity of hearing to the detenue on 23.02.2017. After confirmation of the order, detention order was passed on 07.03.2017 for the period commencing from 03.02.2017 to 02.02.2018. 14. We have perused the definition of dangerous person provided u/s 2-C of the Act of 2006 which reads as under:- "2 (c) "dangerous person" means a person, who either by himself or as member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or a attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI off Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act No. 45 off 1860) of any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959 (Central Act No. 54 off 1959) or any of the offences punishable under first proviso to sub-section (1), and sub-section (1A), off Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Central Act No. 53 of 1972) or any offence punishable under Section 67 off the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 21 of 2000)....." 15. We have also perused the details of criminal cases registered against the detenue and considered the fact that out of 22 cases, in two cases detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya was convicted and six cases were decided by the concerned court by compromise, but other cases are still pending against the petitioner's son for the offences committed by him for various offences of IPC and Arms Act. It is true that in two cases detenue was convicted and out of two cases in one case appeal against the sentence passed against him is pending. It is also admitted position case that three complaints were filed against the detenue under the Gunda Act and under Section 110 Cr.P.C. and u/s 107 and 151 of IPC, in which detenue has been bound down. 16. Upon assessment of entire evidence in the light of definition of habitual offender and dangerous person, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur which has been subsequently approved by the State Government and the Advisory Board because number of case were registered against the detenue. In the last year four cases were registered against the petitioner's son, in which trial is pending. In the last year four cases were registered against the petitioner's son, in which trial is pending. It is true that there are fundamental right of a citizen but we cannot lose sight of the fact that every citizen is required to maintain peace in the society and should not commit offence enumerated in the IPC or difference Acts but in the instant case, number of cases are registered against the detenue and even after conviction by the competent court for the offence u/s 307 IPC the detenue did not stop his criminal activities, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur and State Government has not committed any error so as to pass the order of detention under the Act of 2006 against the detenue, Samer @ Pintiya. It is a case in which the State authorities exercised its power to maintain law and order and peace in the society because it was become impossible to put restriction upon the criminal activities of detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya. 17. In view of above discussion, we find no force in the instant habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of detenue, Sameer @ Pintiya and the same is hereby dismissed.