LAWS(SC)-1975-1-27

SADHU ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On January 22, 1975
SADHU ROY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri S. P. Singh, appearing as amicus curiae has urged a few points in support of his submission that the Petitioner detenu, very poor and not fallen into criminal company, is entitled to be set free, the order being illegal.

(2.) The obnoxious acts, with futuristic import, relating to the detention, have been set out in the grounds annexed to the order and are repeated in the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal, based on the records available in the Secretariat. The District Magistrate of Purulia, nearly three long years ago, passed the order of detention against the petitioner on February 2, 1972 on receipt of materials regarding the prejudicial activities of the detenu and on being subjectively satisfied of the need for the detention under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act XXVI of 1971) (hereinafter called the MISA, for short.)

(3.) The two criminal adventures of the petitioner which persuaded the District Magistrate to prognosticate about his prejudicial activities were allegedly indulged in on September 3, 1971. The grounds of detention are that on that date, in two separate dramatic sallies, the detenu and his associates went armed with hacksaws, lathis etc., and what not, committed theft of overhead copper catenary wires and certain other items from a place between Anaka and Bagalia railway stations. On the first occasion, which was during broad daylight, the miscreants were challenged by the R. S. Members but were scared away by stone throw. On the second occasion, which was at about mid-night, the petitioner and his gang repealed the theft of traction wire etc., at about the same spot when resisted by the duty RPF Rakshaks with the help of villagers' ballasts were pelted at them by the violent intruders who made good their escape with the gains of robbery. Based on these two frightful episodes, the detaining authority came to the requisite conclusion about danger to the community, which is recited in the order.