VIJAY NARAIN SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

VIJAY NARAIN SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

The grounds for detention cited are either too remote in point of time, not of the same kind, or too far apart to constitute 'habitual' conduct as required by section 2(d) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. The petitioner cannot be called an 'anti-social element' as defined by the Act. The order of detention is invalid and liable to be quashed.

Parties
Petitioner: Vijay Narain Singh; Respondent: State of Bihar & Ors
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 April 1984
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) No. 47 of 1984 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court Decision – Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Petition allowed; order of detention quashed.
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention – Interpretation of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, Constitutional Safeguards – Article 22, Bail and Preventive Detention, Interpretation of 'habitually' in Preventive Detention Statutes
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Preventive Detention – Interpretation of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 Constitutional Safeguards – Article 22 Bail and Preventive Detention Interpretation of 'habitually' in Preventive Detention Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijay Narain Singh

Petitioner

State of Bihar & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) No. 47 of 1984 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court Decision – Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner qualifies as an 'anti-social element' under section 2(d) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 for the purpose of preventive detention under section 12.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds for preventive detention are proximate and relevant for subjective satisfaction as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether preventive detention can be sustained when based on acts separated by long intervals or on acts of differing nature.

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds for detention cited are either too remote in point of time, not of the same kind, or too far apart to constitute 'habitual' conduct as required by section 2(d) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. The petitioner cannot be called an 'anti-social element' as defined by the Act. The order of detention is invalid and liable to be quashed.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed; order of detention quashed.

Orders

  • The order of detention passed against the petitioner is quashed.
  • The petitioner is to be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained on some other ground.