Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

A.K. Patnaik, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

xx xx xx xx xx

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

P.K. Misra, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. I agree.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536021',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">xx xx xx xx xx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Misra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536021',
		(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs State of Orissa and ors - Citation 536021 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536021',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226; <a href="/act/52037/national-security-act-1980-complete-act">National Security Act, 1980</a> - Sections 3(2)',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. (Crl) No. 30 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Detention - Quashing of - Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Petitioner arrested for various offence which registered against Petitioner - Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of Act directing that Petitioner, who was in jail custody, be detained until further orders - Petitioner made representations against said detention - Rejected - Hence, present writ petition to quash detention order - Held, there was no material whatsoever before detaining authority for its satisfaction that Petitioner was likely to be released on bail - In absence of such cogent material, order of detention does not satisfy requirements laid down by Apex Court and is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, quashed order of detention - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D. Sarangi and ;Sukumar Ghosh, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'M.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Adv. for O. Ps. 1 and 2 and ;A. Deo, Addl. Standing Counsel
(Central) for O.P. 3',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Patnaik and ;P.K. Misra, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.</p><p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.</p><p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.</p><p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.</p><p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.</p><p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:</p><p>xx xx xx xx xx</p><p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.</p><p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'</p><p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.</p><p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.</p><p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.</p><p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'</p><p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).</p><p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :</p><p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'</p><p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.</p><p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.</p><p>P.K. Misra, J.</p><p>11. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(I)OLR355',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution;Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536021',
	(int) 1 => 'sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536021/sunil-rajgarhia-vs-state-orissa-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Patnaik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> for quashing the order of detention dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 25.6.2002 at 6.00 A.M. and was forwarded to the Court of learned SDJM, Berhampur on the same day on the strength of Non-bailable warrants in G.R. Case Nos.291 of 2001. 1250 of 2001. 987 of 2000 corresponding to B.N. Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 21.3.2001 under Sections 147/148/341/332/307/149, IPC/3ES Act/27 Arms Act, Case No. 314 dated 1.12.2001 under Sections 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dated 16.10.2000 under Sections 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388 of 1994. On 10.6.2002 the District Magistrate, Ganjam passed the order of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the <a>National Security Act, 1980</a> directing that the petitioner, who was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with the aforesaid cases, be detained in Circle Jail, Berhampur until further orders. On 11.6.2002 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The petitioner made representations against the said detention, which were rejected. The order of detention was confirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed about this fact by communication dated 5.7.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order of detention and for a direction to release him forthwith from detention.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Mr. D. Sarangi and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail custody when the order of detention was served on him and it is well settled by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that when a person is in jail custody, the detaining authority before passing the order of detention must show his awareness that he is in jail custody and that he is likely to be released on bail and if he is released on bail, he will indulge in anti-social activities prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel argued that in this case all that the District Magistrate has indicated in the grounds of detention, is that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, but is no material whatsoever in support of the said satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the grounds of detention would show that the petitioner has been indulging in various anti-social activities since 1992 and various criminal cases are pending against him. He further submitted that the petitioner has formed a gang of anti-social people and if he is not kept in detention, he would indulge in criminal activities detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the municipal limits of Berhampur town. In reply to the submission of Mr. Ghosh that there is no material in support of the satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 would show that the petitioner had in fact moved a bail petition on 28.6.2001 in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No 314 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1250 of 2000, but the said bail petition was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Thereafter, the! petitioner filed CMC No. 381 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, who rejected the said petition on 23.6.2002. He also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit to the effect that on 14.8.2002 the petitioner had moved a bail petition in B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 51 dated 9.3.2002 under Sections 341/324/326/506/34, IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2002, but the said bail petition had been rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail. Mr. Mohanty submitted that since the petitioner was making attempts to get himself released on bail, the detaining authority felt that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to be engaged in anti- social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. On perusal of the order of detention, we find that the District Magistrate has shown his awareness of the fact that the petitioner was in jail custody in Circle Jail, Berhampur in connection with B.N.Pur P.S. Case Nos. 71 dated 21.3.2001. 314 dated 1.12.2001, 238 dated 16.10.2000 and MC 388 of 1994. In the grounds of detention, however, he has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The relevant paragraphs of the grounds of detention, as served on the petitioner, which contain the said satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, are quoted herein below:',
	(int) 6 => '<p>xx xx xx xx xx',
	(int) 7 => '<p>You were arrested on 26.5.2002 at 6 am and forwarded to the Hon'ble Court S.D.J.M., Berhampur on the same day on the strength of NBWs vide G.R. Nos. 191/2001, 1250/2001, 987/2000 corresponding to B.N.Pur P.S. Case No. 71 dated 1.12.2001 Under Section 147/148/307/149, IPC/27 Arms Act and Case No. 238 dtd. 16.10.2000 Under Section 399/402, IPC respectively and MC No. 388/94 and now you are in jail custody. You are likely to be released on bail shortly.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>In view of your activities, which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and proximate in the point of time, it is necessary to prevent you from acting in a manner detrimental to the maintenance of public order in the Municipal limit of Berhampur town. There is apprehension of serious breach of public order if you are allowed to move around freely. In the past you have been prosecuted for several times under different grievous sections of IPC and other special laws. The ordinary law of the land of the imposition of terms and conditions of the Court at the time of being released on bail could not deter you from activities prejudicial to the public order.xxxx.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>The aforesaid two paragraphs extracted from the grounds of detention would show that although the District Magistrate has recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly, no reasons have been indicated as to on what basis the District Magistrate arrived such satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail shortly. In the aforesaid grounds of detention, no materials have also been indicated to support the satisfaction the petitioner is likely to be released on bail shortly. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Ganjam dated 2.6.2002 along with the grounds of detention has been enclosed, which formed the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention was prepared by the District Magistrate. But in the said report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.6.2002 there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner is making attempts to go out on bail in connection with the aforesaid case of B.N.Pur Police Station for which he has been arrested and kept in judicial custody. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has indicated that the petitioner moved bail application in two different cases on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 and the said bail applications were rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur and it is because of these attempts on the part of the petitioner to get himself released on bail that the detaining authority felt that he was likely to be released on bail. But the detention order was passed on 10.6.2002 i.e., much earlier to the dates when the bail applications were moved in the aforesaid two cases. Hence, the bail applications moved by the petitioner on 28.6.2002 and 14.8.2002 cannot possibly form the basis for the satisfaction of the detaining authority, when he passed the detention order on 10.6.2002 that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad (AIR 1986 S.C.2090), the Supreme Court did not find from the affidavit of the District Magistrate that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered and held that the order of detention of the detenu under the National Security Act. 1980 was not justified. We quote below the language of the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'xxx It, however, appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate it does not appear that either the prospect of immediate release of the detenu or other factors which can justify the detention of a person in detention were properly considered in the light of the principles noted in the aforesaid decision and especially in the decisions in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan (1964) 4 SCR 921 : (AIR 1964 SC 334) and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate. Etah (1985) 4 SCC 232 : (AIR 1986 SC 315), though there was a statement to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to be enlarged on bail. But on what consideration that opinion was expressed is not indicated especially in view of the fact that the detenu was detained in a murder charge in the background of the facts mentioned before. His application for bail could have been opposed on cogent materials before the Court of justice.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>In this case there were grounds for the passing of the detention order but after that the detenu has surrendered for whatever reasons, therefore the order of detention though justified when it was passed but at the time of the service of the order there was no proper consideration of the fact that the detenu was in custody or that there was any real danger of his release. Nor does it appear that before the service there was consideration of aspect properly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu under the Act is not justified.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>7. In Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. [1994 Supp (I) Supreme Court Cases, 597], the Supreme Court quoted its observations in Kumarunnissa v. Union of India : (1991) 1 SCC 128, and Hawabi Sayed Arfi Sayed Hanif v. L.Hmingliana, (1993) 1 SCC 163, and held that even on the satisfaction recorded in the order of detention, the possibility of the detenu being released in case he moved a bail application was not enough unless the detaining authority further says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. In that, case, in the order of detention, the detaining authority had mentioned that the detenu had not moved any bail application in Court, but nothing prevented him from moving bail application and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in near future. Yet the Supreme Court quashed the said order of detention holding that the statement in the order of detention fell short of the requirement laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India {Supra).',
	(int) 14 => '<p>8. In Amritlal and Ors. v. Union Government through Secreatary, Ministry of Finance and Ors. : AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 3675, the Supreme Court also quoted its earlier judgment in Kamarunnissa's case and Binod Singh's case and held that satisfaction of the likelihood of the detenu being released^on bail ought to be reached on cogent materials. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritlal's case is quot?ed herein below :',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'The emphasis however, in Binod Singh's case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.'',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. In the present case as indicated above, there was no material whatsoever before the detainig authority for its satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. In absence of such cogent material, we are of the considered view that the order of detention does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and is liable to be quashed.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>10. We, accordingly, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released and set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>P.K. Misra, J.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>11. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 21
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109