SHASHI AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments of this case concluded at the close of the court hours on December 18, 1987. We then made the following order : " We will give the reasons later. But we make the operative order here and now. THE detention order is quashed. THE detenu will be set at liberty forthwith. " Here are the reasons : In this writ petition, the validity of the detention of Arun Aggarwal has been challenged. He has been detained by the District Magistrate, Meerut by an order dated August, 3, 1987 made under Sec. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. THE Government, after the receipt of opinion of the Advisory Board, has approved the detention as required under sec. 12 (1) of that Act. THE impugned order reads as under :

(2.) There are as many as five grounds of detention set out in the order. All relate to the offence said to have been committed by Arun Aggarwal on May 19, 1987. Two of the offences are said to have been committed at 9.00 a. m. on that day, the other two offences at 9.30 a. m. and the fifth one was alleged to have been committed between 9.00 a. m. no. 1.00 p. m. on the same day. In each of the grounds there is a mention to the following effect : " Due to your above ill acts there broke out communal riots causing heavy loss to properties and lives of the people and your this ill act has spread fear and terror in the general public of Meerut City. In this manner, you have committed such an act which is against public law and order. "

(3.) The primary question however, is whether the detention of Arun Aggarwal could be justified solely on the ground that he was trying to come out on bail and there was enough possibility of his being bailed out and he would then act prejudicially to the interest of the public order. Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the State, sought to justify the detention order relying upon the decision of this Court in Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, 1983 3 SCR 939. THE counsel also said that the subsequent two decisions of this court to which we will make reference later, are not in tune with the ratio of the decision in Alijan Mian's case. THE detention order contained statement that the District Magistrate was satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and if he was allowed to remain at large, he would be indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This court refused to interfere with that detention order on the ground that the detaining authority was justified in forming that opinion. THE conclusion of this Court was evidently on the basis of material placed before the detaining authority in that case.