Munna Thapa vs The State of Bihar and Others

Heard Kumar Uday Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader No. 11 for the State and considered the affidavits filed by the State authorities and the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. This habeas corpus application arises out of the order of detention passed against the petitioner dated 8.2.2006 in exercise of power u/s 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.

Precisely, it is submitted by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate without application of mind and there does not appear to be close proximity, so far as offences committed by the petitioner in previous years are concerned. Learned counsel also tries to impress upon the Court that since the petitioner was already in custody, the detaining authority could have recorded his subjective satisfaction for his detention, as he was likely to be released on bail and since that has not been done, the order impugned vitiates. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur on 10.4.2005 and after lapse of ten months the order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate without recording his full satisfaction.

Learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that owing to the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the grounds of detention, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the order of detention may be held to be well within jurisdiction.

From the grounds of detention, we find that the petitioner is accused in as many as eight cases, all within the jurisdiction of Muzaffarpur town. The nature of offences appears to be heinous and discloses cognizable offences. The petitioner appears to have indulged in antisocial activities in committing these offences one after another and he appears to be a habitual offender.

From the materials on record and order of detention, it appears that the entire area of Muzaffarpur town appears to be terrified due to antisocial activities of the petitioner and the police personnel are also terror striken.

The cases, which are said to be grounds of detention, may not have very close proximity, but the same demonstrate that the petitioner is indulging in these activities regularly and these are the recurring offences committed by him, which, in our view, must be taken to be prejudicial to public tranquility. The order of detention was virtually affirmed by the Advisory Board and, ultimately, approved by the appropriate Government.

The order of detention, for the reasons aforementioned, in our view, does not suffer from any infirmity nor it can be said to be a case of non-application of mind by the detaining authority.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.