Mantu @ Mantu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Government has been pleased to confirm the detention order No. 113 dated 26.2.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai under Section 12(2) of the Act and directed the petitioner to remain in detention till 25.2.2014.

2. It is submitted that the District Magistrate issued Order No. 113 dated 26.2.2013 by which the order of detention was passed against the petitioner. The grounds of detention has Patna High Court CR. WJC No.648 of 2013 (6) dt.03-09-2013 been given to the petitioner vide Memo No. 112 dated 26.2.2013. By filing supplementary affidavit the petitioner has submitted the details of cases lodged against him which are as follows:- (i) Barahia P.S. Case No. 41/2004, lodged for offences u/S 147, 149, 149, 302 of I.P.C. and u/s 27 of the Arms Act. (ii) Barahia P.S. Case No. 72/2006 lodged for offences u/S 302, 353/34 of IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms Act. (iii) Barahia P.S. Case No. 152/2010 u/s 25(1-b) a 126 of the Arms Act. (iv) Suryagarha P.S. Case No. 152 of 2010 lodged for offences u/s 363 and 365 of IPC. (v) Pipariya P.S. Case No. 20/2012 lodged for u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 384, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. and u/s 27 of the Arms Act. (vi) Barahia P.S. Case No. 119/2012 lodged for u/s 341, 323, 354, 386, 504, 506 of IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms. (vii) Barahia P.S. Case No. 121/2012 lodged for offences u/S 25(1-b) a / 26 (ii) 135 of the Arms Act. (viii) Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 286/2012 lodged for offence u/S 420, 467, 379 etc. of IPC.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner was acquitted in Barahia P.S. Case No. 41 of 2004. It is further submitted that the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.648 of 2013 (6) dt.03-09-2013 petitioner has been granted bail in all the aforesaid cases except Barahia P.S. Case No. 121 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-b) a/ 26 (ii) and 35 of the Arms Act. It has also been submitted that the detention order passed by respondent no. 2 on 26.2.2013 has been given to the petitioner on 5.3.2013 giving him liberty to file his representation. The petitioner filed his representation on 18.3.2013 denying the grounds of detention but without considering his representation dated 18.3.2013, the same was rejected and the petitioner has been directed to remain in detention till 25.2.2014 vide Annexure-4. The impugned orders passed by respondents are not in accordance with law and the detention of the petitioner is quite illegal.

4. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. It has been submitted on behalf of respondents that detention order No. 113 dated 26.2.2013 has been passed by District Magistrate, Lakhisarai against the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Act on the basis of criminal cases of serious nature as stated in the grounds for detention. The petitioner is an anti-social elements and habitual offender constantly committing crimes of serious nature and was expected to be released on bail that necessitated the respondents to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner Patna High Court CR. WJC No.648 of 2013 (6) dt.03-09-2013 prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The detention order has been approved by the State Government under Section 12(3) of the Act within the statutory period of 12 days vide order dated

5.3.2013. The matter was referred to Advisory Board under Section 19 of the Act vide Letter No. 1779 dated 5.3.2013. The petitioner filed a representation against the detention order dated

26.2.2013 which was received in the department on 25.3.2013 vide letter No. 269, dated 20.3.2013 of the Superintendent of Jail vide Annexure A and A/1 to the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 1.

5. The District Magistrate was directed to furnish his comments on the petitioner’s representation vide Letter No. 2365 dated 25.3.2013 which was not received in the department till

1.4.2013. In the meantime, the meeting of the Advisory Board was held on 8.3.2013 in which the petitioner was heard in person and was given full opportunity to represent and explain his defence to prove himself innocent but he failed to convince the Board. The Advisory Board found that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to public order and was satisfied that sufficient grounds exist for his detention which was received in the department on

12.3.2013 (Annexure-B). The State Government considered the representation of the petitioner and was pleased to reject his Patna High Court CR. WJC No.648 of 2013 (6) dt.03-09-2013 representation on 5.4.2013 and it was communicated to the petitioner vide Home (Police) Department Memo No. 2738 dated

8.4.2013 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It has further been submitted that after considering the material on record and the opinion of the Advisory Board the State Government has confirmed the order of detention against the petitioner under Section 21(1) read with Section 22 of the Act with a direction to detain the petitioner to a maximum period of 12 months from 26.2.2013 to 25.2.2014 as contained in Annexure-4.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears that the detention order has been passed by the District Magistrate on the ground of Piparia P. S. Case No. 20 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 147/149/341/323/307/386/504/506 IPC & 27 of Arms Act in which after investigation charge-sheet No. 40 of 2012 has been submitted against the petitioner. In Barahiya P.S. Case No. 119 of 2012

7.11.2012 Section 341/323/324/379/386/504/506/34 IPC. During investigation sufficient evidence has been found to submit charge-sheet. Barahiya P.S. Case No. 121 of 2012 dated 15.11.2012 u/S 25(1-B) A/26 Arms Act in which after investigation Charge-sheet No. 145 of 2012 dated 15.12.2012 has been submitted. Other cases have Patna High Court CR. WJC No.648 of 2013 (6) dt.03-09-2013 been described as pre-antecedent and criminal activities of the petitioner. It has been found by the District Magistrate that the petitioner is a notorious, habitual, professional, and active criminal indulged in committing heinous offences rangdari/ Murder/Kidnapping in association with gang members and is trying to get bail. It has also been admitted by the petitioner that he has been granted bail in all cases except Barahiya P.S. Case No. 121 of 2012.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Shyam Kishore Sharma, J: I agree. N.A.F.R. Kanchan/- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J)