A division bench of the High Court has quashed the preventive detention under the PASA Act for one of the accused in the the 2004 Popular Builders firing case observing he was not a not a dangerous person as per provisions of the Prevention of Anti Social Activities (PASA) Act.
The preventive detention order was passed against one Ramzan Qureshi by the authorities after he and others allegedly attacked his co-accused Noor Goghari,who is also a witness in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case,in July last year inside the complex of Ahmedabad City Civil & Sessions Court.
Goghari had lodged a complaint with Karanj Police Station in Ahmedabad on July 15 last year against Qureshi and 25 others,alleging they had attacked him and his brother inside the court complex.
Qureshi and others were booked and the authorities concerned passed preventive detention order against him and nine others on October 5 last year after he was released on regular bail.
All of them had challenged the order at the HC before its execution.
A single-judge bench had quashed the detention order against the eight,but not against Qureshi and his brother,who then moved the division bench.
Qureshis lawyer had argued that he was not a dangerous person as per the provisions of the PASA Act,as was made out to be in the case registered at Karanj Police Station.
Agreeing with Qureshis lawyer,the division bench has held that a dangerous person as per PASA Act means someone who habitually commits offences under certain provisions of the IPC or the Indian Arms Act.
…for passing the order of preventive detention,a single act cannot be said to be forming the habit of the person for bringing the person within the definition of dangerous person, the court observed.
The court also noted that the chargesheet against Qureshi for alleged attack on Goghari contained charges under sections on simple injury and not grievous injury.
The bench also brushed aside the public prosecutors argument that Qureshi played a role in the 2002 firing at the office of Popular Builders,saying the preventive detention order did not mention it at all.