Usman vs Union of India (UOI)

This Habeas Corpus writ petition is directed against the detention order dated 4.5.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Respondent no.3. A further prayer has been made for setting the petitioner at large.

THE FACTS:

The brief facts relevant for the decision of this case are that an incident had taken place on 28.9.2006 regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged at police station Bhojpur, district Ghaziabad under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 324 IPC. In pursuance of the said FIR the petitioner was arrested on 30.9.2006. Then on 4.5.2007 the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate primarily on the ground that on 28.9.2006 at about 7.00 p.m. the petitioner and six other persons reached the vicinity of Jama Masjid in ''quasba'' Farid Nagar which has a population of 20,000. The petitioner and his six other accomplice who were having lethal weapon which included knives, sword and country made pistol, attacked one Raisuddin. The incident had taken place in a public place where the vegetable market (Sabzi mandi) was situated. The said Raisuddin received sword injuries because of which his neck was half cut and he was also attacked in the stomach because of which his guts had come out. It has also been stated in the impugned order that when the wife, uncle and sons of said Raisuddin reached the spot, they were also attacked by the petitioner and his accomplice, and were also seriously injured. As a consequence of the injuries sustained by him, said Raisuddin died on the spot and thereafter the petitioner and other six persons left the spot displaying their weapons and making an announcement that if anyone tries to confront them, he would also meet the same fate. As a consequence of the said incident, there was commotion in the entire area. The vegetable market was closed down, the milk vendors were terrorized and they left their milk container and the public order was disturbed in the area. Because of the terror of the petitioner and his men, nobody reported the incident at the police station which was situated only 3 kms. away from the place of the incident. However, 45 minutes later, information was given to the police station by an unknown person on phone and then the police came into action. A first information report was lodged. In the order of detention it has also been stated that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the Sessions Court and thereafter the petitioner had filed a bail application before the High Court in which the comments, along with case diary, had been sent to the High Court. The District Magistrate has further recorded that there was a reasonable apprehension of the petitioner repeating such incident which would disturb the public order and as such for preventing any such repetition, the passing of the detention order was necessary. Challenging the aforesaid detention order this Habeas Corpus writ petition has been filed. We have heard Sri Manzarul Islam as well as Sri Noor Mohammad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned AGA appearing for the State-respondents No. 2 to 4 and Sri V.K. Shukla for Respondent No. 1 and have perused the record.

THE SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:

The submission of Sri Manzarul Islam, learned Counsel for the petitioner are three fold, namely:

(1) that the impugned order of detention has been passed on the basis of stale incident, which had taken place on 28.9.2006 and the order has been passed after more than seven months on 4.5.2007;

(2) that there is delay in deciding the representation; and

(3) that the petitioner was in jail and there is no satisfaction recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail and repeat the incident which may disturb the public order.

3.1 1st SUBMISSION:

In support of his first submission the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of SK. Abdul Munnaf Vs. The State of West Bengal, wherein it has been held that in case if there is inordinate delay and no proximity in point of time between the alleged prejudicial activity of the petitioner and the order of detention, the order of detention should be quashed. In the aforesaid case, which related to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, there was a delay of nine months which was unexplained and thus the Apex Court had quashed the order of detention. Sri Tripathi appearing for the State-respondents, has submitted that the petitioner had been arrested within two days of the incident. Since the petitioner was in jail and there was apprehension of the petitioner being now released on bail, hence the impugned order had been passed at this stage and thus there was no delay in passing the order of detention. It has been contended that earlier there was no occasion for the respondents to pass an order of detention. In support of his submission Sri Tripathi has placed reliance on the following decisions:

Yogendra Murari Vs. State of U.P. and Others,

1993 (1) SCC 758 Rajesh R. Khushlani v. Mahendra Prasad

Kamal Pramanik Vs. The State of West Bengal,

In all these cases the delay in passing the order of detention was between 5-6 months and one year and the Apex Court refused to interfere with the order of detention as the same was duly explained. In the case of Yogendra Murari (supra) the Supreme Court was of the view that since the petitioner therein was in custody and there could not be any apprehension of his indulging in any illegal activities requiring his detention until the grant of bail by the criminal court became imminent, there was no necessity to pass the order of detention earlier. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in view the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, in our view, since in the present case also the petitioner had been lodged in jail immediately after the incident had taken place and was then no apprehension of his indulging in illegal activities, thus the impugned order having been passed on 4.5.2007 cannot be said to be delayed.

3.2 2nd SUBMISSION:

The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is with regard to delay by the State Government in deciding the representation of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he had filed the representation before the District Magistrate on 14.5.2007. The respondents have, however, denied the same and stated that the representation was received by the District Magistrate on 30.5.2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the same. From the record it is clear that after having received the representation on 30.5.2007, the District Magistrate forwarded the same to the State Government on 5.6.2007 which was received by the State Government on 6.6.2007. On 12.6.2007 a detailed note was submitted, which was examined by the Joint Secretary to the Government of U.P. on 13.6.2007 and the Officer on Special Duty examined it on 14.6.2007 and submitted the same to the Secretary who, in turn, placed the same before the higher authorities for final orders and thereafter on 15.6.2007 the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that five days between the receipt of the representation by the State Government on 6.6.2007 and the submission of the note on 12.6.2007 are unexplained and thus on this ground the impugned order deserves to be quashed. In support of his submission the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:

1999 UPCR 158

2004 (2) UPCR 192

1996 SCC 470 Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh v. D.M.

The AGA has, however, submitted that the delay, if any, has to be considered in the facts of each case and there cannot be any rigid or straight jacket formula with regard to the same. In support of his submission Sri Tripathi has placed reliance on the following decisions:

1992 SCC 960 Ram Sukrya Mhatre v. R.D. Tyagi and Ors.

JT 1993 (3) SC 660 Smt. Kamlabai v. Commissioner of Police Nagpur

Noor Salman Makani Vs. Union of India and others,

In the case of Ram Sukrya Mhatre v. R.D. Tyagi (supra) while considering a case where the Joint Secretary had expressed his views on 12.8.1991 and on the same date the Secretary had also disposed of the same and forwarded the file to the Home Minister and then the Home Minister rejected the representation on 24.8.1991, the Apex Court in the circumstances condoned the delay of more than 10 days and held that there was no infirmity in the disposal of the representation by the Central Government. The Apex Court has also held that even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay but how it is explained by the authority concerned.

In the present case the representation was received by the State Government on 6.6.2007. In between, 9th and 10th June, 2007 were holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday. The submission of the learned AGA is that some time had been taken by the officials in preparing the note and forwarding the same to the concerned authorities. Considering the aforesaid, in our view, the said explanation is justified as in the facts of the present case the delay of a few days, if any, is fully explained.

3.3 3rd SUBMISSION:

As regards the last submission that there is no subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate that the detenu was likely to come out of the jail and repeat the offence, in our view, there is sufficient material on record as well as mention in the impugned order that since the bail application of the petitioner has been filed in the High Court and the comments, as well as case diary, had been forwarded to the High Court, there could be genuine apprehension of the bail application of the petitioner being considered. Further it has been categorically stated in the impugned order that in case if the petitioner is released, there is every likelihood of the petitioner repeating the offence and thereby creating disturbance in the public order. As such, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the last ground also does not have any force.

CONCLUSION:

We thus find that in the facts of the present case, the detention order cannot be said to have been passed on the basis of a stale incident, nor was there any delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner, and the detaining authority has rightly recorded his subjective satisfaction of the petitioner likely to repeat the offence if released on bail, which was pending consideration. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any good ground for interfering with the impugned order. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.