W.P. (Cr) Nos. 282 and 286 of 2016. Case: Prince Khan and Ors. Vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court
| Case Number | W.P. (Cr) Nos. 282 and 286 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Zaid Ahmad, Advocate and For Respondents: Binod Singh, S.C. (L&C) |
| Judges | Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 22(4)(a); Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 - Sections 12, 12(2), 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 3 |
| Judgement Date | February 23, 2017 |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Judgment:
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
-
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ applications the same are being disposed of by this common order.
-
In W.P.(Cr) No. 282 of 2016, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.2016 as contained in Memo No. CCA/01/40/2015-3210, passed by the respondent No. 3, by which the petitioner has been detained till 29.8.2016. A further challenge has been made to the Memo dated 29.8.2016, by which the period of preventive detention has been further extended till 28.11.2016.
-
By way of amendment, which has been allowed by this Court on 16.12.2016, the period of detention has further been extended till 27.2.2017 vide order dated 28.11.2016.
-
In W.P.(Cr) No. 286 of 2016, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of preventive detention passed on 18.7.2016, by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Memo No. CCA/01/41/2016-3429, by which the petitioner has been detained till 29.8.2016. A further challenge has been made to the order dated 29.8.2016 as contained in Memo No. 5/CCA/01/41/2016-4108, by virtue of which the period of preventive detention of the petitioner has been extended up to 28.11.2016.
-
By virtue of amendment, as has been sought for in I.A. No. 8236 of 2016, which was allowed on 16.12.2016, the petitioner also seeks to challenge the order dated 28.11.2016 detaining the petitioner till 27.2.2017.
-
Heard Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and Mr. Binod Singh, learned Standing Counsel L&C in W.P.(Cr.) No. 282 of 2016 and Mr. R.R. Mishra, learned G.P. II in W.P. (Cr) No. 286 of 2016.
-
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that preventive detention of the petitioners is bad in law in view of the fact that the case of the petitioners after the first order of detention was never reviewed by the authority concerned. It has been stated that even the petitioners were not given any opportunity to represent before them for reviewing the order of detention and thus the basic right of the petitioners were curtailed. Learned counsel submits that period of detention of the petitioners have been extended for three months each merely by the order of the concerned authority without taking the opinion of the Advisory Board as to whether such further detention is necessitated or not. Learned counsel therefore submits that in absence of any confirmation of the order of the preventive detention made by the detaining authority, keeping the petitioners in custody would be against the provisions of law as enumerated in the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. (Herein after referred to as the Act).
-
Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has stated that an order was passed under section 12 of the Act, pursuant to which, it was confirmed by the State Government as well as by the Advisory Board. It has...
To continue reading
Request your trial