STATE OF BOMBAY Vs. ATAMA RAM SHRIDHAR VAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay, ordering the release of the respt. who was detained in custody under a detention order made under the Preventive Detention Act (IV [4] of 1950). The respondent was first arrested on 18-12-1948 under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947 (VI [6] of 1947), but was released on 11-11-1949. He was arrested again on 21-4-1950 under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and on 29-4-1950 grounds for his detention were supplied to him. They were in the following terms : "That you are engaged and are likely to be engaged in promoting acts of sabotage on railway and railway property in Greater Bombay." The respondent filed a habeas corpus petition on 31-7-1950 in which, after reciting his previous arrest and release, in paras. 6 and 7 he mentioned as follows :

(2.) On 30-8- 1950 the Commissioner of Police filed an affidavit against the petition of the respondent in which it was stated that the objectionable activities were carried on by the applicant between the months of January 1950 and the date of detention. It further stated that in or about the month of January law there was a move for a total strike on the railways in India in the month of March 1950 and the applicant was taking prominent part to see that the strike was brought about and was successful. As a means to make the strike successful and bring about total cessation of work on all railways, the applicant and his associates were advocating sabotage on railways and railway property in Greater Bombay. He further stated that reliable materials were put before him of the respondent being engaged in such activities by experienced police officers. He added that although the railways strike in the month of March did not materialise, the idea of bringing about such strike as soon as convenient continued to be entertained and the present respondent was actively engaged in bringing about such a strike in the near future. He then stated that the disclosure of further facts relating to the activities of the detenu was against public interest. In para. 6 there was a specific denial that the respondent, after his release in November 1949, and till 20th April 1950, was out of Bombay. It was stated that he used to go out of Bombay at times but during the major part of the period he was in the city of Bombay.

(3.) When the matter came up before a Bench of the High Court the respondent's petition was granted. In the judgment of the Court, Chagla C. J., observed :