LexRAJ KUMAR SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAJ KUMAR SINGH
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
SEPTEMBER 26, 1986
[R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.]
'
Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981-Section 12(2)-Detention
'{
order-Valid of.
The Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 was enacted to make
special provisions for the control and suppression of anti-social ele'
ments with a view to maintenance of public order. Section 2(d) defines
"Anti-Social Element" and s. 12 deals with power to make orders for
detaining certain persons.
/
Upon the materials, the District .Magistrate, in his order of deten-
tion nnder s. 12(2) has stated that he was satisfied that the petitioner
was an a~ti-social element and was habitually committing offences
punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code and
as such his movements and acts adversely affected the public order. The
incidents referred to in the grounds of detention showing criminal pro-
pensity of the petitioner had taken place one year prior to the date of
passing of the detention order.
The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his detention before the
High Court.
Dismissing the writ petition as well as the appeal, this Court,
HELD: l. Preventive Detention for social protection of the com- ·
munity is a hard law but, it is a necessary evil in the modern society and'
must be pragmatically construed, so that it works. That is how law
A
B
c
D
E
F
serves the society but does not become an impotent agent. Anti-social
G
elements creating havoc have to be taken care of by law. Lawless multi-
tude bring democracy and Constitution into disrepute. Bad facts bring
hard laws-but these should be properly and legally ~pplied. It should
be so construed that it does not endanger social defence or the defence
of the community, at the same time does not infringe the liberties of the
citizens. A balance should always be struck. [920B-D]
· . H
913
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 3 S.C.R.
2. The executive authority is not the sole judge of what is
required for national security or public order. But, the court cannot
substitute its decision if the executive authority or the appropriate
authority acts on proper materials and reasonably and rationally comes
to that conclusion even though a conclusion with which the court might
not be in agreement. It is not for the court to put itself in the position of
the detaining authority and to satisfy itself that untested facts reveal a
path of crime provided these facts are relevant. [920E-F]
3. If, in the background of a case, and having regard to the
definition of 'anti-social element' in s. 2(d) of the Bihar Control of
Crimes Act, 1981, an appropriate authority charged with the imple-
mentation of the Act, comes to the satisfaction that the detenu is one
who is habitually committing or abetting the commission of offences,
such a conclusion is neither irrational nor unreasonable. [919C-D l
4. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the power of preven-
tive detention has been used to clip the 'wings of the accused' who was
involved in a criminal prosecution. The fact that the petitioner was iu
jail has been taken into consideration and all the relevant documents
were in fact supplied to him. Judged by all relevant standards the order
of detention cannot be said to be either illegal or beyond the authority of
law. Therefore, there was no ground for interference with the order of
detention. [920H; 921A-G]
5. While adequacy or sufficiency is no ground of a challenge,
relevancy or proximity are grounds of challenge and proximity would
be relevant in order to determine whether an order of detention was
arrived at irrationally or unreasonably. [919G-H]
Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1984] 3 SCR 435 and
The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. "· The Company Law Board and
Others, [1966] (Supp.) SCR 311, followed.
/chchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] l SCR 640
at 651, Ibrahim Ahmed Batti v. State of Gujarat and Others, [1983] l
SCR 540 at 558 and State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, [1984] 2
SCR at 62 & 63 inapplicable.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 353 of 1986
).
R.K. SINGH v. STATEOFBIHAR [MUKHARJI,J.J
915
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.1986 of the Patna High
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 227 of 1985.
R.K. Garg and Miss Rani Jethmalani for the Petitioner.
D. Goburdhan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABY AExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.