AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this writ petition, petitioner - Ramlath wife of the detenue - Mahammed Sharif is challenging the order of her husband''s detention dated 17.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District exercising his powers under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short ''the Goonda Act''). The order of detention has been subsequently approved by the Advisory Board on 16.07.2016 and confirmed on 28.07.2016.
Facts briefly stated leading to this writ petition would reveal that detenue was involved in several offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC in respect of an incident that took place on 09.10.2015; Crime No.181/2015 was registered against him in Moodbidri Police Station; though he was arrested in the said offence on 20.10.2015 he was later on released on bail on 11.05.2016; in the course of the investigation in crime No.181/2015, police unearthed that detenue was involved in several other offences and therefore crime Nos.170/2015, 230/2015 and 96/2015 came to be registered against him mainly in respect of offence under Section 307 of IPC and other offences. Thus, four criminal cases have been registered in Moodbidri, Bajpe and Kavoor police stations against the detenue. It is in this background, proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru to detain Mahammed Sharif under the provisions of the Goonda Act so as to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future.
Grounds of detention served on the detenue dated 17.06.2016 indicate the four cases referred to herein above registered before Moodbidri, Bajpe and Kavoor police stations. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenue would continue to indulge in habitual criminal and goonda activities which would disrupt normalcy in Mangaluru city and Moodbidri; that action taken against the detenue under the Indian Penal Code had no effect on him as he had continued to freely indulge in criminal and anti-social activities. It is further stated therein that although the detenue was in judicial custody, in case he were to obtain bail and was released on bail he would continue to indulge in activities detrimental to the public order.
It is clear from the facts born out from the pleadings and the materials placed on record in the form of orders passed by the Courts of law enlarging the detenue on bail that in Crime No.181/2015 in relation to an incident that had taken place on 09.10.2015 he was released on bail on 11.05.2016. With regard to crime No.170/2015 which had taken place on 20.09.2015 he was enlarged on bail even earlier on 28.04.2016. In the other two cases that is Crime Nos.230/2015 and 96/2015, detenue has been enlarged on bail on 08.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 respectively that is to say after the order of detention dated 17.06.2016 was passed. It is thus clear that the detenue has been enlarged on bail by the Courts of law in all the four cases.
Atleast as on the date the detention order was passed on 17.06.2016, the detenue was on bail in Crime No.170/2015 and 181/2015. This fact being a very relevant fact for the purpose of forming subjective satisfaction as to whether the detention of detenue under the provisions of the Goondas Act was necessitated has not been taken into consideration. In the entire grounds in support of the detention order served on the detenue on 17.06.2016, we do not find any reference to the two bail orders granted in Crl.Misc.No.343/2016 (Annexure-G) and Crl. Petition No.2723/2016 (Annexure-H). In our view this important factor having not been taken note of by the detaining authority, order of detention is vitiated for not taking note of the relevant facts. We may further add here that even in these two cases namely crime Nos.230/2015 and 96/2015 it is not as if the detenue has committed the offences after he was enlarged on bail in other two cases (Crime Nos.170/2015 and 181/2015). The basis on which the authority has acted stating that he was indulging in repeated activities even during the pendency of the trial thereby disturbing the peace in the locality, does not appear to be correct. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the order of detention cannot be sustained.
Hence, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. The detenue is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
Registry shall communicate this order to the Hindalga Jail, Belgaum where the detenue is presently under custody.