Ram Singh vs State of Punjab

I.S. Tiwana, J.(Oral)

Though the petitioner concededly was in custody under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. 1985, on August 22, 1986, yet the District Magistrate, Amritsar thought it proper to order his detention under the National Security Act with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of the State. Copy of this order of the District Magistrate is Annexure P. 1 and the petitioner impugns it on a wide variety of grounds including the one that there was no justification for passing this order in view of the various pronouncements of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, such as Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR, 1986 SC 315 and Binod Singh v. District Magistrate Dhanbad, AIR 1986 SC 2090. in view of the provisions of section 17(5) of the above noted 1985 Act, it is the undisputed position that the petitioner could not be allowed bail by the trial Court without according an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose his prayer and further the Court recording its satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds that the petitioner was not guilty of the offence alleged against him and he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail, if granted. Mr. Saron, appearing for the State however, contends that in spite of this stringent with regard to the grant of bail. to an accused under the said Act, the possibility of grant of bail to the petitioner could not be ruled out and therefore the District Magistrate was justified in passing the impugned order. He, however, concedes that prayer for bail in the above noted case had been dismissed on July 28, 1986, i.e., about 25 days prior to the passing of the impugned order. In the face of this accepted factual position, it is difficult to attach any weight to the submission of Mr. Saron.

Following the ratio of the above noted two Supreme Court judge merits and an earlier judgment of mine in Crl. W.P No. 379 of 1987 Devinder Singh v. The State of Punjab) decided on May 6, 1987, I am of the considered view that the detention of the petitioner cannot possibly be justified or sustained. I therefore, quash the impugned order, Annexure P. I and direct his release forthwith if otherwise he is not wanted in any other case.