Shri Sanjay @ Dinesh @ Kala vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 977 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, (J)

1. Petitioner, said to be member of 'Bhuri Gang' and a desperate and dangerous criminal involved in as many as 19 criminal cases, was first detained under NSA on 23.4.1999. He challenged this in Crl. W. 603/99 which was allowed by order dated 30.9.1999. Respondents took SLP against this before Supreme Court which was dismissed on 2.8.2001

2. Petitioner was later arrested in FIR No. 442/01 Under Section 25 Arms Act and while he was in jail, he was ordered to be detained by Police Commissioner vide order dated 24.11.20001 passed Under Section 3(2) of NSA to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He made representations dated 28.11.2001 and 13.12.2001 against this which were rejected on 15.12.2001 and 28.12.2001 respectively. His detention was subsequently approved and confirmed on 29.11.2001 by Lt. Governor which he is now challenging on oft-repeated grounds.

3. Petitioner says that his detention was invalid because (i) detaining authority had taken into consideration cases and incidents prior to 2.8.2001- date of dismissal of respondents' SLP by Supreme Court and previous grounds of first detention; (ii) the authority had not shown any compelling necessity for his detention when he was already in jail and was not granted bail; (iii) order suffered from non-application of mind as the Authority had considered those cases also in which he was acquitted or discharged buy had failed to consider all the material and had passed the detention order at the behest of sponsoring authority; (iv) the grounds of detention did not relate to maintenance of public order but to law and order; (v) those simultaenosuly detained with him (refence to other members of Bhuri Gang) were supplied more documents as against him; (vi) there was a delay in disposal of his representation; (vii) he was not given some relied upon documents like High Court order in Crl. W.No. 603/99 and Supreme Court order in dismissed SLP etc; and (viii) grounds of detention were vague inasmuch as it was not indicated what tender forms were obtained and when was the tender to be opened and when were threatening calls made (perhaps a reference to FIR No. 645 dated 7.9.01).

4. Respondents 2 & 3, in their counter affidavit, filed by DCP (HQ) Sh. T.N. Mohan have replied these averments in the same coin denying and refuting all the allegations. They have justified the order which was passed on the basis of available relevant material and in conformity with relevant provisions of NSA. It is denied by them that any criminal cases registered against petitioner prior to 2.8.2001 or previous grounds of detention or cases in which petitioner was acquitted or any uncommunicated materials were taken into consideration for passing of detention order. It is submitted that seen though petitioner was in custody in FIR No. 265/2000, still there was an apprehension of his being bailed out thus necessitating the passing of detention order.

5. It is further claimed that criminal activity undertaken by petitioner related to maintenance of public order. FIRs registered in each case showed his involvement in various criminal cases which he had committed in broad daylight and at public places falling within the purview of public order. Alleged vagueness in the grounds of detention is denied and so is the delay in disposal of representation and non-supply of relied upon documents. It is explained that the representation from petitioner's brother was received in Police Headquarters on 4.12.2001 which was sent to the sponsoring authority for comments and which were received on 7.12.2001. The representation was later put up before the detaining authority and was rejected on 13.12.2001 which was communicated to petitioner on 14.12.2001. The second representation was received on 15.12.2001 which was sent to the sponsoring authority on the same day, whose comments were received in Police Headquarters on 20.12.2001. A copy of the representation was also sent to Government of NCT, Delhi. The representation was eventually considered and rejected by the Police Commissioner on 22.12.2001 which was conveyed to petitioner on 26.12.2001.

6. The grounds of detention show petitioner's involvement in 19 criminal cases out of which he stands acquitted in 5 cases and discharged in 2 cases. Five cases were pending trial against him and 7 under investigation. Out of the list of these 19 cases, cases figuring at serial Nos. 1 to 7 are said to have been mentioned by way of narration to show his past criminal history and cases from serial No.8 onwards relate to incidents after 24.5.2000. Therefore, it can't be said that Detaining Authority had taken incidents prior to 13.9.99 when his detention was quashed or previous grounds of detention were taken into consideration in passing the detention order. It is true that respondents' SLP against this order was dismissed on 2.8.2001. But that would not suggest that any alleged criminal activity committed by him after 13.9.1999 to 2.8.2001 could not be taken into consideration for passing of detention, because, these would not constitute previous grounds so as to operate as a bar of any kind for fresh order. Moreover, detaining authority has denied to have taken into consideration cases prior to 2.8.2001 which should take care of the issue and set it at rest.

7. We have dealt with all others issues taken by petitioner in a detailed judgment in Crl. W. 135/02 filed by the co-detenus. We adopt the reasoning of that judgment on each issue and applying that to the facts and circumstances of the present case, reject all pleas raised by petitioner herein. We are doing this on scrutiny of the rival claims set out in the pleading of parties and record of the case.

8. Similarly, we have dealt with the vagueness of ground No.9 (which was ground No.4 in Crl. W.175/02) and rejected the contention. We affirm that reasoning for this case also to reject petitioner's case in that regard.

9. Therefore, on the parity of reasoning adopted by us in connected and allied Crl. W.135/2002 and Crl.W.175/2002 involving identical and similar issues, this petition also suffers the same fate and is dismissed.