1. - In this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner, Dhanraj Vaishnav, has challenged the order (Annex.2) dated 8.3.2016 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 8.3.2016 (Annex.2) was approved by the State Government under Section 3 (3) of the Act of 2006 vide order dated 24.4.2003 (Annex.3), whereby the petitioner was detained for one year w.e.f. 9.3.2016 to 8.3.2017.

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 behaviour 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 14.9.2015 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 3.11.2015. After release, an F.I.R. No. 82/2016 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 327 and 392 of I.P.C. 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 under Section 3 of the Act of 2006.

4. The Executive Magistrate-cum-Police Commissioner, Jodhpur passed an order on 8.3.2016 for detention and forwarded the same to the Government for confirmation. The details of the activities and cases registered against the petitioner are placed on record as Annex.1. The aforesaid order was issued by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur on the basis of number of cases registered against the petitioner to maintain law and order of the city. The order of detention was placed before the Advisory Board for approval and after approval the State Government passed an order dated 28.4.2016 for detention of petitioner w.e.f. 9.3.2016 to 8.3.2017.

5. In this habeas corpus petition, both these orders are under challenge.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the every citizen has a right of life and liberty, but without considering the material after due application mind, the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur, as well as State Government passed order for detention against the basic principal of law, therefore, the detention order is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 2006.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that previously order dated 14.9.2015 was passed for detention of the petitioner for one year under the provisions of Act of 2006 by the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur but the Advisory Board, did not approve the said order of detention, therefore, the