Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhim Puri vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 May, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2023/RJJD/016905] (1 of 3) [HC-362/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 362/2022
Bhim Puri S/o Magan Puri, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of
Ramji Ka Gole Fanta, Piparali, Police Station Gudamalani District
Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Magistrate, Barmer.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Barmer.
4. Station House Officer, Police Station Gudamalani District
Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Rinwa.
Mr. Aditya Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, G.A.-cum-AAG with
Mr. A.R. Malkani.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Judgment
25/05/2023
(PER HON'BLE MR. ARUN BHANSALI, J.)
1. This writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus has
been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of order dated
12.07.2022 (Annex.2), whereby the District Magistrate, Barmer,
while exercising the powers under Section 3 of the Rajasthan
Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 ('the Act'), has
ordered for preventive detention of the petitioner subject to
approval by the State Government & opinion of the Advisory Board
and order dated 21.09.2022 (Annex.4) passed by the Joint
Secretary, Department of Home, whereby based on the opinion
[2023/RJJD/016905] (2 of 3) [HC-362/2022]
dated 22.08.2022 of the Advisory Board regarding availability of
sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner, order has been
passed confirming the detention order dated 12.07.2022 and has
ordered that the detenue be kept in detention till 12.07.2022.
2. The present writ petition was heard alongwith Mangi
Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition
No.3/2023, having similar facts and identical aspects as raised in
the case of Mangi Kumari (supra) were raised in the present
petition also.
3. In the case of Mangi Kumari (supra), this Court after
dealing with all the aspects raised in the petition, came to the
conclusion and directed as under :-
"48. In view of above discussion, it is apparent that
the detenue was not afforded adequate opportunity to
make a representation as required under Section 9(1) of
the Act, the order dated 21.07.2022 has been passed by
the State Government in a mechanical manner, non-
service of the said order on the detenue, was highly
prejudicial to his interest preventing him from availing
remedy against the said order, the basis for passing of the
order as disclosed in the complaint (Annex.1) regarding
release of the detenue on bail and helplessness of the
authorities in maintaining the law and order cannot form a
basis for ordering preventive detention, the orders
impugned cannot be sustained.
49. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner is allowed. The order dated 13.07.2022
(Annex.2) passed by the District Magistrate, order dated
21.07.2022 (Annex.A/2) passed under Section 3(3) of the
Act and order dated 21.09.2022 (Annex.3) passed by the
State Government under Section 13(1) of the Act are
quashed and set-aside. The detenue is ordered to be set
at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case."
4. In view of the order in the case of Mangi Kumari (supra),
the present petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order
dated 12.07.2022 (Annex.2) passed by the District Magistrate,
order dated 21.07.2022 (Annex.R/A/1) passed under Section 3(3)
of the Act and order dated 21.09.2022 (Annex.4) passed by the
[2023/RJJD/016905] (3 of 3) [HC-362/2022]
State Government under Section 13(1) of the Act are quashed and
set-aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if
not required in any other case.
5. No order as to costs.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
