The High Court of Jharkhand set aside the order which directed the petitioner to record his daily presence before officer in charge of Patratu for a period of six months after he was declared as a habitual offender and held that order does not meet legal criteria and is in violation of the petitioner's right as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution from India and further for passing an order under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, this must appear from the records that the person is an anti-social element.
Brief Facts:
Under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, the learned District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, issued an order against the petitioner, directing him to record his daily presence before taking charge of Patratu for a period of six months. He was also instructed to deposit his licensed firearms and refrain from carrying any firearms on him. In an attempt to overturn the ruling, the petitioner has filed an immediate criminal writ petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 3 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 does not apply to the impugned judgment and that it is clearly invalid. The Indian Penal Code as used as the foundation for two criminal proceedings against the petitioner, which led to the Superintendent of Police's request to pass the contested order. He further submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding resident of the village who is neither a repeat offender nor a member of any recognized criminal organization and as a result of village politics and political retaliation, he was labeled as an "anti-social element" by the police after being involved in the two aforementioned criminal cases in fast succession within a period of 15 days. It was further submitted that right guaranteed under Article 21 is being violated by placing unreasonable restrictions on the petitioner's movement without adhering to the "procedure established by law."
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent's learned counsel presented the evidence shown in the counter-affidavit filed by the SDPO Patratu claimed that the petitioner was a member of the "Pandey Gang," which was active in the Ramgarh district and engaged in extortion and levy against industrialists through the commission of crimes such as robbery, firing, explosion, attempted murder, stopping work in progress, and intimidating and threatening the stakeholders. The petitioner has two prior criminal convictions, and in one of the aforementioned criminal cases, a charge sheet naming notorious felons has been filed. It is further submitted that, through local input and intelligence sharing, it has come to light that the petitioner is indirectly engaging in criminal activities such as extorting money from businessmen, traders, contractors, and others by forming associations with notorious criminals. As a result, the region's economic operations are being disrupted in addition to upsetting the calm, normality, and serenity in Patratu and the surrounding districts. It is also alleged that the petitioner abducted several candidates in order to intimidate them into not filing nomination forms for the Panchayat Election of 2022.
Observations of the Court:
The bench noted that the provisions of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 tend to take over the right to life and personal liberty of a citizen and therefore, these must be construed literally in strict manner. The bench further observed that an order has been passed to mark attendance for the maximum prescribed time period allowed under Section 3(a) of the Act and no special reason has been recorded for passing of the said order for the maximum period at one go. In the show-cause notice as well there is no whisper about “general nature of the material allegation” except pendency of two criminal cases against the petitioner.
There is no statement of facts showing that the petitioner is a member of any gang and his movements in the locality is causing disturbance to the peace and public order. There is no material placed on record that the petitioner is not abiding the terms and conditions of bail bond or not co-operating in the investigation of the case. The bench held that for passing an order under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, this must appear from the records that the person is an anti-social element.
It was held that the contested order has been issued requiring the petitioner to mark his presence before to the Patratu Police Station officer-in-charge at 10 everyday, does not meet legal criteria and is in violation of the petitioner's right as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution from India.
The decision of the Court:
In this instance, the Court ruled that in view of the discussions and reasons, the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh cannot be sustained in law and was accordingly quashed. The present writ petition was allowed.
Case Title: Nishant Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and others.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) (D.B) No. 551 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Aditya Raman
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
