AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner seeks u writ of habeas corpus for quashing his detention order dated 21121996 contained in Annexure No. 1 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, under Seclion 3(2) or the National Security Act.
The gist of the matter is that since 9111995 the petitioner alongwith few others including Chandra Pal Yadav, Suraj Pal Yadav and Angad Yadav was lodged in Jail as undertrial in connection with crime ease No. 835 of 1995 police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 120B, I.P.C. In that case he had applied for bail which, however, was declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow vide his order dated 781996.
It was contended that even though the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with the aforesaid case, yet on 21 1296, he was surprised by the respondents with the service of the impugned detention order which, according to him, was completely punitive, arbitrary and without sufficient cause. It was urged that the detention order was an unnecessary curb on his fundamental right inasmuch as it was passed simply to create hurdle in his release on bail if at all, he ever tried for it. In the same sequence, it was submitted that at an earlier stage the respondents had ordered for the detention of his coaccused Chandra Pal Yadav, Suraj Pal Yadav and Angad Yadav also under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, but in the case of the former two, the detention orders had to be revoked in the light of the recommendations of the Advisory Board under Section 12(2) of the Act, ibid, whereas the detention of Angad Yadav was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12720 of 1996 (Allahabad) decided on 651996. Amongst others, the petitioner also took the plea that the District Magistrate passed the impugned order in a mechanical fashion without application of mind. Certain other pleas regarding inordinate delay in disposing of his representation both at the level of the State Government as well as Central Government were also raised.
On behalf of the State Government a counteraffidavit was filed by one of its Deputy Secretary P.S. Agarwal whereas the District Magistrate filed, his personal affidavit. The burden thereof was common to the extent that there was no delay in handling and disposing of the petitioner''s representation; that detention order was passed on an over all view of his antecedents and the likely impact of his release on the public order. The petitioner was stated to be a man''s of criminal propensities; his release was likely to create an environment of terror and generate terrorist activities disturbing the public peace. However, there was no categorical or specific denial for the averments that three of his coaccused in the aforesaid murder case were also served with the detention order on the same facts and that their detentions were either revoked by the Government on the recommendation of the Advisory Board or quashed by the High Court on the judicial side. The Central Government has also filed counteraffidavit through one Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi.
On a careful scrutiny of the entire available material and hearing the parties we are inclined to quash the detention one, two short grounds; the first and foremost being similarity to the case of his coaccused Chandra Pal Yadav, Suraj Pal Yadav and Angad Yadav. At the risk of repetition it may be mentioned that all these three persons, of course, at different stages were also detained under Section 3(2) of the Act, ibid, on the same very ground and their detentions were found unsustainable. There is nothing to indicate any distinguishing feature to justify the petitioner''s detention; interesting aspect of the matter being that the last release of the aforesaid detenus was on 651996 i.e., a good seven and a half months prior to the service of the impugned detention order on the petitioner. If the petitioner were to be a person of dangerous propensities who could be a hazard to the public peace and security, there might possibly be a good ground to warrant his detention, but the casual attitude of the authorities towards the issue exposes them in poor light, particularly when he had started making attempts for his release on bail. His efforts to come out of Jail by seeking bail was frustrated by the judicial order dated781996 and this incident itself should have alterted the State authorities to take precautionary measures for the detention of the petitioner, if at all, they felt that it was warranted under the circumstances but their inaction for another four and a half month in this regard goes unexplained.
It may not be out of context to mention here that in the affidavit, Central Government have conceded that they had received the petitioner''s representation through Jail as well as the State authorities but surprisingly enough they did not bother to apprise the petitioner about the result thereof. On the other hand in para 5 of their affidavit they came out with a novel plea that they did not deem it necessary to inform the petitioner or anybody about the outcome of the said representation. The Court is of the considered opinion that every authority to whom a detenu has a right of representation and is empowered to affirm, revoke or rescind it, is statutorily obliged to consider it on merit expeditiously on addressing itself in the right earnestness and on taking a decision thereon apprise the detenu of its outcome.
Hence for the reasons recorded above, we quash the detention order and direct that the petitioner be set at liberty unless wanted in any other case. Costs on parties. Petition allowed.