Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.28 of 2013 ====================================================== Satendra Yadav @ Satyendra Praad Yadav @ Satyendra Yadav aged about 48 years, Son of Girija Yadav, Resident of Village and P.O. at Naima, Police Station – Ghoshi (Okri) in the District of Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Department of Law and Justice, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad. 5. The Station House Officer Ghoshi, Police Station, Jehanabad. 6. The Station House Officer Okri Out Post Ghoshi Police Station, Jehanabad. 7. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sub-Inspector of Police, Okri, O.P. 8. The Central Bureau of Investigation through its Superintendent of Police at Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate. : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, AAG-II. Mr. Pramod Kr. Sinha, A.C. to AAG-II. : Mr. Bipin Kr. Sinha, S.C., C.B.I. Mr. Sunil Kr. Ravi, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA For the C.B.I.
Legal Reasoning
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) and 2 11-01-2013 The petitioner has filed instant writ with following prayers : (I). For issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari, setting aside and quashing the notice under Section 3 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 issued by the Court of District Magistrate, Jehanabad under the seal and signature Patna High Court CR. WJC No.28 of 2013 (2) dt.11-01-2013 2 of the District Magistrate Jehanabad, served upon the petitioner on 17.12.2012 (Annexure-6). (II). For issuance of a direction to Respondent No. 8 to conduct an independent enquiry thereafter investigation, if need arises, about the conduct of the respondents whosoever he or she may be. (III). For issuance of appropriate order(s), writ(s) and direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the notice Annexure-6 happens to be vague, cryptic in the background of the fact that there happens to be total absence of application of mind with regard to facts and circumstances whereupon Annexure-6 is based. Neither any details of case number has been mentioned nor facts thereof. Such vagueness really deprived the petitioner from answering properly. In likewise manner it has also been submitted that the notice was issued in pursuance of CCA Case No. 14 of 2012 dated 16.12.2012 disclosing the fact that presence of petitioner in or around the area found to be hazardous to the extent of smooth conduction of Gram Panchayat Election of the year 2011. On this score, it has been submitted that Gram Panchayat Election was already concluded in the year 2011 then how the presence of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.28 of 2013 (2) dt.11-01-2013 3 petitioner considered by the authority concerned in the year 2012 will prove prejudicial to the interest of administration as well as the voters being participate of the Gram Panchayat Election which was already concluded in the year 2011 so submitted that Annexure-6 is fit to be quashed. At the other hand the learned AAG-II contended that though there happens to be vagueness to some extent in the notice but that can be found to be fully explained in case there happens to be appearance of petitioner in pursuance of Annexure-6 and a demand is being made on his behalf on that very disclose. So submitted that on account of vagueness of notice, for the present, the relief as sought for by the petitioner found to be non-maintainable. Application of Section 3 of Bihar Control of Crimes Act happens to be an extraordinary administrative power vested to the District Magistrate to direct the anti-social elements who are being identified in accordance with Section 2 of the Act to be ousted or remain outside the periphery of his jurisdiction. For that purpose, a notice is required to be issued and proforma thereof has been given under Schedule Form No. 1. The purpose for noticing is to enable the person concerned to answer to the allegation in proper as well as authentic way so that his plea to that context be found complete answer. In the aforesaid background when we have gone through the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.28 of 2013 (2) dt.11-01-2013 4 contents of the notice which are as follows: “And whereas material allegations against him respect of the aforesaid clause (a)/(b)/(c) are of the following general nature:- 1. That there are 4 (four) cases under various section of I.P.C. filed against him in Ghoshi (Okari O.P.) Police Station. 2. That report has been received from Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad and the concerned S.D.P.O. that he may disturb the current Election process of Panchayat Election 2011 intimidate voters in Jehanabad district.” That means to say petitioner has been kept in dark by having simply mention of four cases pending against him. On this, there happens to be categorical statement of the petitioner that much before issuance of notice against him petitioner was already acquitted in Ghoshi (Okri) P.S. Case No. 138 of 1994 and for the present, four cases are pending out of which any, there happens to be said at the hands of this Court therefore, there happens to be non- application of mind to that extent on account of vagueness by not disclosing the P.S. Case No. wherein the petitioner has been deprived of to answer the charge properly and that certainly appears to be in violation of natural Patna High Court CR. WJC No.28 of 2013 (2) dt.11-01-2013 5 justice. The second ground taken up and shown in the notice happens to be with regard to anti-social activities of petitioner so alleged to be hazardous during course of smooth and peaceful conduction of Gram Panchayat Election 2011. The aforesaid thing on its face gives a piquant situation because of the fact that the notice so issued (Annexure-6) happens to be an order thereafter then how the events which have already affected would be taken into consideration for that purpose. This part again shows that there happens to be non- application of mind on the part of District Magistrate, Jehanabad while issuing the notice (Annexure-6). With regard to maintainability of the instant petition, that had already been decided through catena of decisions. Consequent thereupon instant writ is allowed. Annexure -6 is hereby quashed. However, the District Magistrate will be at liberty to proceed afresh if the situation so warrants. (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) KKSINHA/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)