The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the provisions of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, and the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) :

1. The instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

(a) For appropriate writ/writ(s), order/order(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the learned District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh (Respondent No.2) in CCA Case No.23/ 2023, whereby and whereunder the order u/s 3(a)(b)(i)(ii) of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 has been passed against the petitioner and the petitioner has been directed to mark his attendance every day at 10.00 A.M. before officer in charge of Patratu for a period of six months and further directed to deposit his licensed arms, if any, and not to keep any arms with him.

(b) For issuance of any appropriate writs or direction or order as may be deemed fit.

2. The factual background of the case is that a show cause notice dated 01.04.2023 was issued by learned District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh against the petitioner in CCA Case No. 23 of 2023 stating therein as to why not an order under Section 3(a)(b)(i)(ii) of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 be passed, as per report submitted by Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh vide letter no. 134/DCB dated 28.03.2023. The nature of general allegations against the petitioner is that following criminal cases have been registered against him:-

(i) Patratu P.S. Case No. 76/2022 dated 04.05.2022 registered under Sections 342, 171(E), 171(F), 504, 506, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and U/s 68(A) of the Panchayati Raj Act 2001 and Section 123 part (i) & (ii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(ii) Patratu P.S. Case No. 70 of 2022 dated 20.04.2022 registered under Section 385, 387, 435 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner appeared and filed his show cause denying the allegations but, according to him, the same was not properly considered and the impugned order was passed.

3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is patently illegal and does not come within the ambit and scope of Section 3 of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. The impugned order has been passed merely on the proposal of Superintendent of Police on the basis of two criminal cases registered against the petitioner under the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C). Neither the petitioner is a habitual criminal nor does he belong to any gang of known criminals rather he is a law abiding person in the village and due to village politics and political vendetta, he has been involved in aforesaid two criminal cases in quick succession within a span of 15 days and branded by police as “anti-social element”. The impugned order is based on extraneous considerations de hors the factual aspects of the case. Fundamental right of life and personal liberty which inheres “the right of privacy” is most cherished right of a citizen of India guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and which is not even suspended at the time of Emergency, is being violated by putting unreasonable restrictions on the movement of the petitioner without following the “procedure established by law”. The petitioner is a victim of executive excess, hence, directly took shelter of this Hon’ble Court for efficacious remedy, which cannot be available through slow process of appeal provided under Section 6 of the said Act and without compromising with his personal liberty.

4. It is further submitted that mere providing the list of first information report filed against the petitioner does not mean setting out the general nature of material allegation. No specific overt act or any other reason has been mentioned in the impugned order justifying the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. Petitioner is on bail in the first case i.e. Patratu P.S. Case No. 76/2022 and in the second case i.e. in Patrat