http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 19

PETITIONER:

VIJAY NARAIN SINGH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/04/1984

BENCH:

REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

BENCH:

REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

SEN, A.P. (J)

VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:

1984 AIR 1334 1984 SCR (3) 435

1984 SCC (3) 14 1984 SCALE (1)736

CITATOR INFO :

D 1986 SC2173 (12,13,14,16)

RF 1986 SC2177 (44)

R 1988 SC1256 (12)

R 1989 SC 364 (8,9,11)

RF 1989 SC2265 (17)

F 1990 SC2069 (5)

RF 1991 SC1640 (11,12)

ACT:

Bihar Control of Crimes Act 1981-Section 12 read with

section 2 (d). For preventive detention under section 12

authorities must be satisfied that the person to be detained

is anti-social element as defined in section 1(d).

Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981-Section 2 (d)-

Definition of ’antisocial element’-Interpretation of

expression ’habitually’ in sub-clause (i), (ii) and (iv)-

Meaning of.

Interpretation of statutes-Rule of-Law of preventive

detention must be strictly construed.

Practice-When person enlarged on bail by competent

criminal court, great caution should be exercised in

scrutinising validity of preventive detention order which is

based on the very same charge which is to be tried by

criminal court.

Words and Phrases-Expression ‘habitually’-Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:

The petitioner, who was facing a Sessions trial for

offences under section 302 read with sections 120B, 386 and

511 of the Indian Penal Code, was allowed to be enlarged on

bail by the High Court. But before the petitioner was

released, the District Magistrate passed an order on August

16, 1983 under section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes

Act 1981 for detention of the petitioner, in order to

prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention

supplied to the petitioner related to the incidents which

took place in 1975 and 1982 and also the incident which gave

rise to the above-mentioned trial. The petitioner challenged

the order of detention before the High Court under Article

226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 19

petition on a technical ground. Hence this petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended:

(1) that the impugned order of detention was void under

Article 22 (5) of the Constitution as one of the grounds was

too remote and not proximate in point of time and had

therefore no rational connection for the subjective

satisfaction of the District Magistrate under section 12 (2)

of the Act, and (2) that the impugned order of detention was

male fide and consti-

436

tuted a flagrant abuse of power on the part of the District

Magistrate as it was meant to subvert judicial process by

trying to circumvent the order passed by the High Court

enlarging the petitioner on bail.

Allowing the petition by majority,

^

HELD: (Per Venkataramiah and Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.)

The law of preventive detention is a hard law and

therefore it should be strictly construed. Care should be

taken that the liberty of a person is not jeopardised unless

his case falls squarely within the four corners of the

relevant law. The law of preventive detention should not be

used merely to clip the wings of an accused who is involved

in a criminal prosecution. It is not intended for the

purpose of keeping a man under detention when under ordinary

criminal law it may not be possible to resist the issue of

orders of bail, unless the material available is such as

would satisfy the requirements of the legal provisions

authorising such detention. When a person is enlarged on

bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be