G.K.VYAS,J. - (1.) In this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner, Dhanraj Vaishnav, has challenged the order (Annex.2) dated 08.03.2016 passed by Executive Magistrate- cum-Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, whereby the Police Commissioner while exercising power under Section 3 (2) of Rajasthan Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 2006 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as Act of 2006) has ordered for detention of the petitioner. So also the order dated 08.03.2016 (Annex.2) was approved by the State Government under Section 3 (3) of the Act of 2006 vide order dated 24.04.2003 (Annex.3), whereby the petitioner was detained for one year w.e.f. 09.03.2016 to 08.03.2017.
(2.) As per facts of the case, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (West), Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur, submitted a report to the Executive Magistrate-cum-Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, averring therein that 32 cases have been registered against the petitioner under Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and other acts in various police stations of Jodhpur. Out of 32 cases, the petitioner has been convicted in 5 cases and acquitted in 9 cases on the basis of compromise in between the parties and in two cases, he was acquitted by the concerned court. It is also reported that 16 cases are pending against the petitioner in the nature of house breaking, robbery, dacoity, attempt to murder, suicide and under the Arms Act etc. According to report, the petitioner was found to be habitual offender because as per charges against him he was involved in a case various offences in Jodhpur city, therefore, he is dangerous person creating law and order problem in Jodhpur city. It is also reported that under Section 110 Cr.P.C. he was bound down to keep peace and good behavior in 10 cases. A history sheet was also opened against the petitioner, therefore, the police was minutely watching the activities of the petitioner.
(3.) The Police Commissioner, Jodhpur after examining the entire criminal activities passed an order for detention previously on 14.09.2015 but subsequently the matter was not confirmed by the Advisory Board as per provisions of the Act of 2006, therefore, the petitioner was released on 03.11.2015. After release, an F.I.R. No.82/2016 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 327 and 392 of IPC and on twice occasions, the petitioner was bound down by the Executive Magistrate-cum-Police Commissioner, therefore, the case of the petitioner was considered afresh on the basis of material available on record for detention u/s 3 of the Act of 2006.;