DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD, J. - (1.) BY order dated 8.1.2002, this matter was listed under the heading "For Orders" but for final disposal. Counter -affidavits have also been filed by the respondents and as such, the matter was heard and is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
(2.) THIS application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas -corpus challenging the validity of the detention of the petitioner in Daltonganj Jail, by which the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj passed the order of detention and the said order was confirmed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is stated that the petitioner was in custody in Sadar P.S. Case No. 437/2000 under Sections 384, 385, 386 and 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Superintendent of Police, Palamau. submitted a report along with charge sheet before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, requesting him to pass an order of detention under Section 12 (2) of the Act and in the said report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police made a reference about the cases of Sadar P.S. Case No. 412/2000 registered under Sections 341, 342, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Sadar P.S. Case No. 434/2000 under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and Sadar P.S. Case No. 437/2000 under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He also referred as regards to the cases of Sadar P.S. Case No. 381/91 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act; Sadar P.S. Case No. 327/96 under Sections 147, 148, 353, 448, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sadar P.S. Case No. 282/1998 under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau on receipt of the report registered a case being Case No. 1 of 2001 -2002 under Section 12(2) of the Act and after going through the records passed the order of detention dated 3.7.2001. Thereafter the Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Home (respondent No. 2) confirmed the order of detention, hence this application.
(3.) ON the other hand, counter -affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents claiming therein that the Deputy Commissioner. Palamau (respondent No. 3) passed the order impugned correctly after being satisfied about the criminal activity of the petitioner who is said to be the veteran criminal of the area and he used to collect money from different persons especially who are the businessmen on threat. It is also alleged that in one case, the Court below acquitted the petitioner due to nonavailability of the evidence in the Court and no body was ready to depose in Court against the petitioner. The grounds on which the detention order was passed is perfectly correct as the petitioner used to collect money from businessmen on threat and the order of the Deputy Commissioner was also confirmed by the Home Department as well as by the Advisory Board. It is wrong to say that he is an active political worker of BJP rather his father is also involved in so many criminal cases. The petitioner is a habitual offender and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The case lying with Sadar PS Case No. 581/91 does not form part of the ground of detention but it merely forms a criminal history of the petitioner and there is no illegality in the order impugned and as such, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.;