JASWANT SINGH ALIAS JASSU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of his detention dated 25/8/1998 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) The order of detention is based on the material indicated in the grounds of detention, which were served on the petitioner on 1/9/1998 on execution of the order of detention. The petitioner is stated to have committed three criminal offences in the year 1997 which included offences of robbery & attempts to murder. He is also stated to be a leader of a criminal gang having propensity to use fire arms and indulge in violence at public places in pursuit of his objectives & this renders him a grave threat to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention further allude to the fact that the witnesses in the criminal cases pending against him are likely to be intimidated by his presence and free movement and they may not come forward to depose against him. The grounds of detention also speak of his criminal activities, which are stated to be prejudicial to public peace and tranquillity and public order, and his notoriety and terror, which are deterring people from report- ing his criminal depredations. The grounds of detention also disclose pending prosecutions against the petitioner in three criminal cases, namely, (1) Case FIR No. 274 dated 17/7/1997 Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi, under section 307/302/34 Indian Penal Code pertaining to firing incident in which one Pradeep Kumar, a shop owner of Roop Nagar, Delhi, sustained bullet injuries; (2) Case FIR No. 440/97 dated 19/7/1997 under section 392/34 Indian Penal Code PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi, pertain- ing to robbery at Head Post Office, Ashok Vihar; and (3) Case FIR No. 371/97 dated 4/9/1997 under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code PS Narela, Delhi, in respect of a firing incident at Constable Suresh.

(3.) The petitioner challenges his detention mainly on the ground that the representation submitted through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar on 3/9/1998 was disposed of by the Lt. Governor of Delhi after much procras- tination on 23/9/1998. Mr. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no worthwhile explanation is forthcoming from the respondents for taking twenty days in disposing of the representation of the detenu. According to the learned counsel, delay in the disposal of the representation is fatal and vitiates the continuous detention of the petitioner. He also urged that the alleged conduct attributed to the petitioner does make out a case of disturbance of public order. At the most it can be a case of breach of law and order which does not attract the provisions of the National Security Act.