Cr. Writ No. 51 of 2013. Case: Rajesh Singh @ Kaila Singh @ Sardar and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary and Ors.. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | Cr. Writ No. 51 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. Vikas Kumar for the State |
| Judges | Shyam Kishore Sharma and Aditya Kumar Trivedi, JJ. |
| Issue | Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 - Sections 12(2), 21, 22 |
| Citation | 2014 (2) PLJR 185 |
| Judgement Date | April 02, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Order:
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.C. to A.G. for the State. Petitioner has challenged order dated 25.5.2012 passed by District Magistrate, Begusarai in accordance with Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (in short "the Act" for all future references) alongwith order dated 4.6.2012, the date of approval of order dated 25.5.2012 by the State Government in terms of 12(3) of the Act as well as order dated 29.6.2012, the date of confirmation of order dated 25.5.2012 in terms of Section 21 read with Section 22 of the Act invoking the writ jurisdiction.
2. As reported by the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai categorically stating that presence of petitioner in and around will jeopardize the public order on account of his chequered history as well as recent involvement in four cases, the learned District Magistrate/Detaining Authority being subjectly satisfied passed the order dated 25.5.2012 detaining the petitioner who on the relevant date was undergoing judicial custody.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that subjective satisfaction of learned District Magistrate though happens to be out of judicial purview but the process thereof is within its ambit and on account thereof the order impugned should be scrutinized to arrive at just conclusion that the process adopted by the Detaining Authority is in accordance with law as well as satisfy the ingredients of natural justice.
4. On the other hand, learned AC to AG submitted that taking into account the chequered history and further active involvement of the petitioner continuously led to the ultimate conclusion that if he is allowed to remain outside, he will pose threat to public order. As such, the order of detention dated 25.5.2012 followed with its approval and confirmation are justified as well as in accordance with law.
5. Perused the order impugned. Petitioner has been shown to be involved in 13 cases by way of his criminal antecedent while the basis for passing of detention order is based upon his involvement in connection with four cases which are Barauni Refinery P.S. Case 293/2010 dated 8.9.2010, Mufassil P.S. Case No. 378/2010 dated 4.10.2010, Mufassil P.S. Case No. 330/2010 dated 20.8.2010 and Barauni Refinery P.S. Case 45/2011 dated 26.2.2011. The aforesaid cases as is evident from the order impugned was registered against unknown and during course of investigation culprits were...
To continue reading
Request your trial