Mallu Yadav vs State of Bihar

Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.(Oral)—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

By this writ petition, the order of externment passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Gaya under Section-3 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 has been challenged. State has filed a counter affidavit.

The only point in issue is that the externment order itself refers to petitioner being accused in one case and, that too, of the year 2014. As per the counter affidavit, charge-sheet has been submitted as against the petitioner in that case. The counter affidavit does not dispute that there is no other case registered against the petitioner, except one another Sanha, which is for mere information but no F.I.R. has been registered pursuant thereto. The counter affidavit says that the Collector had definite information that petitioner was involved in some other crime and would disturb public order. Unfortunately, the law takes no cognizance of those facts.

An order of detaining or externment under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 can only be passed against a habitual offender, as defined therein and, this Court has repeatedly held that a habitual offender is a person who is involved in several cases and not an isolated case. Thus, the petitioner cannot be said to be a habitual offender. If that is so, the Collector has no jurisdiction in the matter.

In view of the aforesaid, we have no option but to set aside the order of externment passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya vide Memo No. 1195 dated 18.04.2016 in connection with Case No. 18/2016. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.