AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju and S. K. Singh, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government counsel for the Respondents.
The Petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 12.9.2001 (Annexure-1 to the petition) under the N.S.A. The grounds of detention are annexed to the detention order and a perusal of the same shows that on 15.6.2001 at about 1 p.m., Sunil and Kaloo, who were accused in a criminal case, were being taken by constable Dusshrath and homeguard Promod Kumar from police lockup to Mohammad Nagar, District Court. At that time, the Petitioner and his associates came and said that they should take revenge for the murder of Santar Pal. Petitioner and his associates fired with kattas due to which Sunil and constable Dusshrath died and Kaloo was injured. When some persons tried to intervene, they were also fired upon. The Petitioner and his associates then ran away waving kattas in their hands towards the railway station. They also fired in the air while running away. This caused panic and terror in the bazar and shopkeepers closed their shops and residents entered into their house due to terror in the locality. Some stolen electric wire was also recovered at the pointing out of Petitioner.
In our opinion, this is a clear case affecting public order. In our view, if this kind of activity is tolerated, no criminal trial can ever be held, and witnesses will be unwilling to give evidence out of fear.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was in custody at the time the detention order was passed and no bail application was pending. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Ahamed Nassar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , that a valid detention order can be passed against a person, who is in custody, even if no bail application is pending on his behalf, provided the detaining authority is aware that the detenu is in jail and he is satisfied that there is a possibility of his being released.
In para 12 of the grounds of detention, it has been mentioned that the Petitioner is trying to obtain bail through his pairokar. Hence, in our opinion, even though no bail application may have been pending, the detention order is valid.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then submits that the detention order was passed in a casual manner. We do not agree. The grounds of detention clearly show that there was no casualness in passing the detention order.
Thus, there is no force in the petition, and it is accordingly dismissed.