LexVIJAY NARAIN SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
>
,-.•
•
•
VIJAY NARAIN SINGH
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
April 12, 1984
[O. CI!INNAPPA REDDY,, A.P. SEN AND
0 E.S.
VENKATARAMIAI!, JJ.]
. Bihar Control of Crimes Act
1981-Section 12 read .with section 2
(d). For preventive detention under section 12 authorities mu1t be ~atisfied
that the.person to be detained is anti-social element as defined in section
2 (d).
Bihar Control ofC,'imes Act, 1981-Sectlon 2 (d)- Definition of 'antl·
social element' -Interpretation of expression 'habitual/I in sub-clause (j),
(Ii) and (iv)-M_eanlng of.
·
[titerpretatlon of statutes-Rule o~-Law of pre11entive detention must
be strictly construed.
Practice-When· ,,erson enlarged on bail by competent criminal court,
great caution should be exercised in scrutinising validity of preventive
detention order which is based on ihe 'Jery ~atne charge which is to be tried
by cr 1mlnal court.
· '.ff'ords and Phrases-Expression 'habitually'-Meaning ~!•
The petititiner, /\'ho Was facing a Sessions trial for Offences under
section 302 read with sections 120B, 386 and 5ll of the Indian Penal
Code, \Vas allowed to be enlarged on bail by the l-Iigh Court.
But before
the retitloner was released, the District M;lgistrate passed an order on
August 16, 1983 under section -12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes. Act
1981 for detention of the petitioner, in ord
0er to prevent him from acting
· in any manner prejudicia'l to the maintenance of public order. The grounds
of deteo\ion supplied to tbe petitioner related to the incidents which took
place in 1975 and 1982 and als·o the incident which gave rise to the
above-mentioned trial.
The petitioner challenged the order· of detention
bef\'re ihe High Court under Article 22() of the ContsitutiOn.
The High
Court dismissed the petition on a technical ground.
Hence this petition
under Article. 32 of tho Constitution. The petitioner contended : (1) lhat
the i1npugned order ot detention was void uiider Article 22 ($) of the
Constitution as one o·r the grounds was too remote and not proxima.te in
point of time and had therefore no rational connection {or the subjective
satisfactiotl of the District Magistrate under section 12 (2) of the Act,
ap<l (il ttiat the imp11gned order of detention was mala fide and consli·
435
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUpR~NIE COURT REPORTS
[198413 S.C.\l.
A
toted a ftagf.ant abuse of ~ower on the part of the District Magistrate as
it was meant to subvert judicial proCess by trying to circumvent the order
passed by the High Court .enlarging .th·e petitioner on bail.
B
c
·o
.'
F
G
H
A II owing· the petition by majority,
HELD : (Per Ven~ataramiah and Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.)
The law of preventive detention is a. )lard law and therefore it !<.hould
be strictly construedw
Care should ~e taken that the· liberty of a persqn
is not jeopardised· unless his case falls squarely within the .four corners
of the relevant law.
The Ja_w of J:l'reventive d1:tention shOuld.not be used
merely ·to clip the wings of an accused who is -involved in a criminal
' prosecution.
It is not intended for the purpose of
0keeping a man· under
detention when _under ordi.Iiary criminal Jaw it may not ,be possible to
resist the is.sue of orders of baiJ, unless the· 1naterial .available is si.ich as
would satisfy the requiremelits of-the legal provisions authorising· such
detention.
When a ,Person is_ enlarged on b::t.il by a competent Criminal
court, great caution sh_ould be exercised in scrutinising tlte validity of an.
order or preventive detention which is based on the very same charge
•
which is to be tried by the criminal court.
[459C·D)
S~tion 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 makes pro·
vision for the detention of an anti· social elemei:J.t.
The detaining autho-
rity should, therefore, be satisfied that ·the person against whom an order
is made under section 12" of the Act is an-.aati-social element as defined
in section 2 (d) of the Act. The two sub-clauses of section 2 (d) which are
relevant for the purposes of this case are Sub-clause {i) and sub.clause
- (iv). Unde; sub-clause (i) a person who either by himself or as a melnber
-of or leader of a. gang habitually comtrlits or attempt; to.commit or abets
the commi.ssion of Offences punishable und~r Chapter XVI dealing· with .
offences affecting the human body or Chapter XVII dealing with. offences
against property, of the ladian Peria! Code is considered 'to be an anti ..
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.