NARENDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail the order of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi dated 31st October, 2001 thereby ordering the detention of the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The basis for making the said order, as would be apparent from the grounds of detention are that as many as 12 criminal cases fully enlisted in the grounds of detention, some for serious offences such as extortion and robbery, murder, attempt to murder etc, were registered against the detenu during the period 1990 to 20th August, 2001. Some of these cases have already ended up in acquittal or discharge of the detenu while only two cases, one arising out of FIR 268 under Section 392/34 IPC and Arms Act PS Model Town and another FIR No. 187 under Section 384/ 506 IPS PS Frash Bazar were pending trial. Two cases arising out of FIR 271 under Section 384/411/120-B/34 IPC PS Kamla Market and FIR No. 159 under Section 25 of the Arms Act PS Frash Bazar were pending investigation. The detenu, however, stands convicted in case FIR 254, PS Kamla Market for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Detaining Authority, it appears taking not of more specifically, of Six cases out of the said 12 criminal cases and the fact that in six cases the detenu was acquitted because the witnesses including the injured have not dared to depose against the detenu had reached the requisite satisfaction for invoking Section 3 of the Act. The grounds of detention also mention that after great pursuation and assurance, two persons of the area came forward to give their statements about the criminal activities of the detenu but pleaded that their statements be kept secret, other wise their lives will be in danger but these statements could be produced before the Advisory Board or the Court. It was also noticed that the detenu was in judicial custody in case FIR No 159/2001 of PS Frash Bazar and case No.271/2001 under Section 384/ 411/120-B/34 IPC PS Kamla Market, Delhi had been granted bail, but the bail bonds were yet to be accepted and he will be released from jail on acceptance of the bail bond. From the said facts, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the detenu was a desperate and dangerous criminal, his activities being pre-judicial to the maintenance of the public order and in view of his past criminal history there was every apprehension/imminent possibility that he will again indulge in such type of criminal activities which were deemed to be highly prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Pursuant to said order petitioner was detained on 1.11.2001.

(2.) The Lt.Governor of Delhi exercising the powers of State within the meaning of Sub- Section 4 of Section 3 of the Act approved the detention order vide an order dated 6.11.2001. The Advisory board also found the detention order justified.

(3.) We have heard Shri Rupesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Ms.Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel representing the State/National Capital Territory of Delhi and have given our thoughtful consideration to their submissions. The foremost ground on which the detention order is sought to be challenged as invalid and unjustified is that the reliance of the Detaining Authority on six cases in which the petitioner already stands acquitted in order to form an opinion that the petitioner was a desperate and dangerous criminal was not justified, in as much as in those cases, the appellant had been acquitted from the charges on merits after full dress trial, the acquittal of the petitioner would show that he had been falsely implicated in the cases. We do not find any merit in this contention because the copies of judgments of the trial court annexed with the grounds of detention would show that in all these cases the acquittal was the result of the important prosecution witnesses including the eye witnesses and in some cases even the victim of the incident had failed to support the case. On the face of these circumstances, one can safely infer that it must be due to the terror wielded by the petitioner and his brother that the witnesses felt shy to depose against the petitioner as they must be apprehensive of some ensuing harm at the hands of the accused in case they deposed against him.