Judgment Intelligence
Petition Dismissed- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 8 May 2023
- Bench
- Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anil Kumar Upman
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 — Sections 3, 9, 11, 14; Constitution of India — Article 226
Petition dismissed. No ground was made out to interfere with the order of detention, and the Bench declined to interfere with the one-year period of detention (paras 30, 31).
Key holdings
- Section 9 was met: the order, grounds and 238-page record were served on 14.06.2022, with written notice of the right to represent (paras 13-15, 18).
- ‘Place before’ in Section 11 means forwarding the grounds to the Advisory Board within three weeks, not their consideration by the Board within that period (paras 22, 23, 29).
- Forwarding on 28.06.2022 was substantial compliance with Section 11 although the Board heard the case after three weeks (para 23).
- With over 11 months of the one-year term served and his last five cases for serious offences, the period of detention was not disturbed (para 30).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Om Prakash @ Oma @ Jeevan Ram v. The State of Rajasthan & Others D.B. Civil Writ (Habeas Corpus) Petition No. 377/2021
Under Section 11 of the Act of 2006, 'place before' the Advisory Board means forwarding the order and grounds of detention to the Board within three weeks (applying Raisuddin); the Board may take up the case later.
- Rajesh Sharma alias Raju Pandit v. State of Rajasthan & Others 2017 CRI. L.J. 3420
Relied on by the petitioner; the Bench explained that it held 'place before' to mean only forwarding the papers to the Advisory Board, a principle followed in Om Prakash, so the reliance was misplaced in law and on facts.
- Shaik Nazneen v. The State of Telangana & Others Criminal Appeal No. 908/2022
Relied on by the petitioner; there the Supreme Court found on facts that the case did not warrant invoking the preventive detention law.
View all precedents (7)
- Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur & Others (2010) 9 SCC 618
Relied on by the petitioner; of no aid because no violation of any statutory provision of the Act was found here.
- Guddu @ Hazrat Ali v. The State of Rajasthan & Others D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 249/2021
Relied on by the petitioner; there the registered cases were not of a nature to show anti-social activities, unlike the recent serious cases here.
- Omprakash @ Omi @ O.P. v. The State of Rajasthan & Others D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 217/2022
Relied on by the petitioner; there Section 9 was violated because the detenu was not afforded the earliest opportunity of representation, whereas here he was informed in writing on the day of detention.
- Ajay Rinwa v. The State of Rajasthan & Others D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 220/2018
Relied on by the petitioner; there the Advisory Board's opinion on a fresh detention rested largely on cases already reckoned in an earlier detention order that had been quashed.
