Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 793 (GUJ)

Rajubhai Ranabhai Odedara v. State Of Gujarat

2019-09-05

ANANT S.DAVE

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. At the outset, learned Asst. Government Pleader informs that against the petitioner, 45 offences are registered vide different F.I.Rs as recorded in oral order dated 11.4.2018. 3. The oral order dated 11.4.2018 is reproduced herein below: 1. Learned advocate for the petitioner seeks some time. The record shows that petitioner is enjoying interim relief in his favour against his proposed detention since 15.12.2014. There was detailed order on 15.11.2017 which reads as under : “There is interim relief in favour of the petitioner since 15.12.2014. Repeatedly leave note and sick note has been filed on record. Moreover, though Vakilatnama is signed by two advocates, they have tendency to press for hearing of selective matters based upon signature of two advocates in Vakilatnama even if either of them has filed leave note and sick note. However, in the present case, since interim relief is in their favour, learned advocate for the petitioner are avoiding to proceed further in the matter. Therefore, though learned advocate has requested for time, no further time can be granted and matter requires to be taken up for final hearing. However, since Court time is over, let the matter be listed on tomorrow for further necessary orders when advocates does not remain present after getting interim relief in favour of the petitioner. It is made clear that when any of the advocates is available, then, matter cannot be adjourned only because of their choice. In such case, if nobody appears for the petitioner on tomorrow, then, interim relief may be vacated. It is also made clear that all such orders are available on Internet and, therefore, there is no reason for any of the litigants or their advocates to plead that they are not aware about such situation. List on 16.11.2017.” (Emphasis supplied) 2. Thereafter, when matter was listed on 16.11.2017, draft amendment was not pressed and on 24.11.2017 and 13.12.2017 following orders were passed by this Court. Date : 24/11/2017 “Petitioner has submitted one proposed draft amendment, so as to quash and set aside the order dated 04.07.2014. Considering the fact that such order is on July, 2014, respondent wants to verify certain details and may need to file reply. However, it is made clear that petitioner is enjoying interim relief since 2014. Date : 24/11/2017 “Petitioner has submitted one proposed draft amendment, so as to quash and set aside the order dated 04.07.2014. Considering the fact that such order is on July, 2014, respondent wants to verify certain details and may need to file reply. However, it is made clear that petitioner is enjoying interim relief since 2014. Petitioner shall proceed further in the matter, irrespective of any difficulty, considering the fact that after having interim relief in favour of the petitioner such criminal matter, petitioner must keep alternative arrangement for hearing. Therefore, Court may proceed further in absence of learned advocates for the petitioner on next date of hearing. List the matter on 08.12.2017.” (Emphasis supplied) Date : 13/12/2017 “It is made clear that petitioner is enjoying interim relief since 2014. Petitioner shall proceed further in the matter, irrespective of any difficulty, considering the fact that after having interim relief in favour of the petitioner such criminal matter, petitioner must keep alternative arrangement for hearing. Therefore, Court may proceed further in absence of learned advocates for the petitioner on next date of hearing. List the matter on 21.12.2017.” 3. Thereafter, when matter was taken up for active hearing on 15.2.2018 considering the fact that FIRs based upon which respondent proposed to detain the petitioner was allowed in the year 2013- 14, both the sides were directed to verify the status of criminal case initiated in view of such FIRs. 4. Today, learned AGP has disclosed a list of FIRs registered against the petitioner before different police stations. As per such list, petitioner was convicted by trial court pursuant to FIR No.I96/ 2003 and though he was acquitted in three other cases in the year 2007 and 2008, after filing this petition in the month of November, 2014, it seems that petitioner has involved himself in five other cases i.e. I75/2014, I37/ 2015, II113/ 2016, I112/ 2016 and III66/2017. He has further disclosed that cases for all such FIRs are pending before this Court. In view of such disclosure, petitioner is not entitled to interim relief in this petition because when petitioner is directed against proposed detention as back as in December, 2014, this petitioner should not involved himself in any other offence thereafter, but as recorded hereinabove, petitioner is involved in 45 offences even thereafter. Therefore, interim relief needs to be vacated. 5. In view of such disclosure, petitioner is not entitled to interim relief in this petition because when petitioner is directed against proposed detention as back as in December, 2014, this petitioner should not involved himself in any other offence thereafter, but as recorded hereinabove, petitioner is involved in 45 offences even thereafter. Therefore, interim relief needs to be vacated. 5. While dictating such order, learned advocate for the petitioner has requested to pass on the matter. Hence, matter was passed on. However, nobody has appeared even in second call. Hence, interim relief stands vacated forthwith. 6. List the matter on 27.4.2018.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. In the backdrop of above factual scenario, Ms. Bela Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that during pendency of this petition, order of detention dated 4.7.2014 is brought on record whereby the petitioner is ordered to be detained as a dangerous person. 5. The contention is raised about non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the extent that registration of solitary offence and that too the petitioner is bailed out, cannot result into breach of public order and case of breach of law and order can be dealt with by taking recourse to ordinary course of law. It is submitted that affidavit-in-reply is filed and what is recorded in order dated 11.4.2018 by learned Single Judge is not correct and the above facts need not form part of record of this petition. 6. On the contrary what appears on the record that PSI of Kamlabaug Police Station, Porbandar has placed on record 12 different F.I.Rs. registered against the petitioner from 2003 onwards and during pendency of writ petition there are 6 F.I.Rs under different provisions of Indian Penal Code under Sections 365, 307, 323, 143, 147, 149, 504 and also under Prohibition Act and various other offences. Even, proposal forwarded for detaining the petitioner under PASA is also placed on record. 7. That 45 offences registered vide different F.I.Rs against the petitioner as informed by learned Asst. Government Pleader is relevant in view of judicial order dated 11.4.2018 passed by learned Single Judge which is reproduced above reveal the fact of registration of atleast 5 F.I.Rs. other than the F.I.Rs for which, detaining authority has passed the order of detention. 8. 7. That 45 offences registered vide different F.I.Rs against the petitioner as informed by learned Asst. Government Pleader is relevant in view of judicial order dated 11.4.2018 passed by learned Single Judge which is reproduced above reveal the fact of registration of atleast 5 F.I.Rs. other than the F.I.Rs for which, detaining authority has passed the order of detention. 8. A careful perusal of the order of detention reveal that the petitioner has used lethal weapon by administering threat to the complainant and witnesses at public place and in view of detaining authority it has resulted not only into breach of law and order but also public order and, therefore, detaining authority by applying its mind arrived at subjective satisfaction, cannot be said to have been vitiated. Even statement of witnesses further reveal that investigation for the offence being F.I.R. No.75 of 2014 still continues. But for the operation of stay order granted by this Court in 2014 at pre-execution stage of detention, detaining authority would have certainly implemented the order passed by the Court. That contention about inclusion of offence under Chapter 16 or 17 or both together is irrelevant inasmuch as solitary offence is sufficient enough for detaining authority to apply its mind and in the facts of this case when the petitioner is a notorious criminal against whom plethora of offences were registered vide different F.I.Rs. at Kamlabaug Police Station, Porbandar and detaining such a person as a dangerous person by invoking provisions of PASA cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. The order which was pressed into service, where the ‘detenue’ was sought to be detained as property grabber and not as a dangerous persons, the principle governing the law of detention, this Court has no different opinion but the facts are so glaring in this petition whereby continuation of stay order since 4 years though vacated earlier at the pre-execution stage of detention is alarming. In absence of merit, petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner and to be deposited in the registry of this Court within 7 days, as powers invoked by the petitioner is nothing but gross abuse of process of law. 9. Rule is discharged.