1986 (9) TMI 406 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order u/s 12(2) of The Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.
2. Adequacy of the materials supplied to the petitioner.
3. Relevance of the petitioner's prior criminal activities.
4. Proximity and relevancy of the incidents cited for detention.
5. Period of detention.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Detention Order u/s 12(2) of The Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, u/s 12(2) of The Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. The Act aims to control and suppress anti-social elements to maintain public order. The District Magistrate, based on the petitioner's habitual criminal activities, ordered detention to prevent further prejudicial actions against public order. The Supreme Court upheld the order, stating that the authority acted on relevant facts and arrived at a decision that was neither irrational nor unreasonable.

2. Adequacy of the Materials Supplied to the Petitioner:
The petitioner alleged that not all materials were supplied to him. However, the High Court noted that all relevant FIRs were received by the petitioner, and he acknowledged this by signing in his own hand. The Supreme Court found no merit in the claim that materials were withheld, affirming that all statutory safeguards were complied with.

3. Relevance of the Petitioner's Prior Criminal Activities:
The detention order cited multiple incidents involving the petitioner, including Jogta P.S. Case No. 22 dated 11.3.84 and Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 43 dated 11.3.83. These incidents demonstrated the petitioner's habitual criminal behavior, which adversely affected public order. The Supreme Court agreed with the District Magistrate's assessment that the petitioner habitually committed offenses punishable under the IPC.

4. Proximity and Relevancy of the Incidents Cited for Detention:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proximity and relevancy in determining the validity of a detention order. The incidents cited were recent and demonstrated a consistent pattern of criminal behavior. The Court distinguished this case from Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, where the incidents were separated by a gap of 6-7 years. The Court found that the detention order was based on relevant and proximate incidents, making the order rational and reasonable.

5. Period of Detention:
The petitioner argued that the detention order did not specify the period of detention. The Supreme Court noted that the State Government had clearly notified the period of detention until 6th December 1986, as per Annexure I at page 52 of the Paper Book of Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 1986. This notification was in accordance with section 22 of the said Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed both the Writ Petition and the Criminal Appeal, affirming the legality and propriety of the detention order. The Court reiterated that preventive detention, though a hard law, is necessary for social protection and must be applied rationally and reasonably based on relevant materials.