Ravi Patel v. The State of Bihar through under Secretary Of State Of Bihar

confirmed and the petitioner has been directed to be detained till

1.1.2014.

The petitioner has been implicated in Riga P. S. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.361 of 2013 (4) dt.02-07-2013 Case No. 36 of 2012 and only two mobiles were recovered from his possession during search by the police party which belong to the petitioner and the petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 (1-b) a / 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act but the petitioner has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge on 24.4.2012. The petitioner has also been implicated in another case as Sitamarhi P. S. Case No. 450 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 384/386/387 of IPC and the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.1.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 45376 of 2012 (Annexure-2). It has further been submitted that learned District Magistrate has instituted a Crime Control Case No. 4 of 2012 merely on the basis of the information received regarding the aforesaid two cases.

The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that grounds for detention of the petitioner are not sufficient under the Act. The police has registered aforesaid two cases in which the petitioner has already been granted bail. Both the aforesaid cases have been lodged by the police against the petitioner and only on the basis of these two cases the order of detention has been passed by learned District Magistrate which is not in accordance with law. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.361 of 2013 (4) dt.02-07-2013

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 7 to show that the petitioner is a notorious criminal and his main profession is to collect rangdari by terrorizing the people and the Superintendent of Police has recommended to the District Magistrate for detention of the petitioner vide letter No. 1430 dated 1.11.2012 (Annexure-B), thereafter the detention order has been passed by the District Magistrate vide order dated 2.1.2013 and has submitted that there is sufficient material on the record to show that the detention order is proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that it is an admitted fact that the basis for issuance of detention order by the District Magistrate is the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police. The report shows that petitioner is involved in two cases; Riga P. S. Case No. 36 of 2012 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-b)a/26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and Sitamarhi P. S. Case No. 450 of 2012 instituted for the offence punishable under Section 384/386/387 of IPC. It appears that both the cases have been lodged by the police. The complainant is the police not any Patna High Court CR. WJC No.361 of 2013 (4) dt.02-07-2013 public.

Considering the merit of the case that the petitioner has already been granted bail in both the cases and no complaint has been made by public against the petitioner, in our opinion, both the cases are related to law and order and not the public order. The activity of the petitioner as depicted in the order does not appear to be such to affect the public order and tranquility of people. It appears that the impugned order passed by respondent no. 4 is an abuse of the provisions of the Act.

In view of the insufficient material before the District Magistrate to satisfy himself to detain the petitioner under the Act as the grounds shown are related to law and order and not the public order, the detention of the petitioner is held to be invalid and not sustainable in law.