CHANDRA PRAKASH GAJUREL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Chandra Prakash Gajurel, is a foreigner - Nepali national, who is now detained in Central Prison, Chennai under the National Security Act, 1980 (in short "n. S. Act") has filed the above petition to issue a writ of Habeas corpus calling for the records of the first respondent, Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order F) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9, connected with G. O. Ms. No. 943 Public (Law and Order F) Department dated 19. 09. 2005 and quash the same and to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is a Teacher by profession and politburo Member of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist ). There was a widespread protest in Nepal against monarchy in 1989-90 and on the basis of an agreement between King Birendra and the political parties, the pro democracy movement was called off. After the introduction of the multi party system, the political parties including, Communist party of Nepal came into power. After the assassination of King Birendra, the multi party system was not acceptable to King Gyanedra and the entire democratic movement suffered a serious set back. There was widespread human rights violation and thousands of Nepalis were arrested or killed. Many of them who were in the forefront of the struggle for democracy simply "disappeared".

(3.) THE petitioner was arrested on 21. 08. 2003, when he attempted to travel from Chennai Airport to London through British Airlines by furnishing false information to the Immigration authorities, Chennai that he was a British National by name Smith Mark Evelyn Digby, holding a British Passport. The charge sheet in C. C. No. 736 of 2005 (Airport P. S. Cr. No. 145/2004) was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur for the offences under Sections 12 (1) (b) (d) and (e) and 12 (1-A) (a) of the Passport Act. According to the petitioner, the maximum penalty contemplated for the offences is only 2 years or fine and he has completed the said period in prison. At this juncture, based on the alleged incident, the first respondent State Government in G. O. Ms. No. 943 Public (Law and Order F) Department dated 19. 09. 2005 detained him under Section 3 (1) (b) of the National Security Act on the ground that he has no permanent address in India and no ostensible means of livelihood and that he would commit such offences and indulge in activities prejudicial to the security of the nation and his continued presence in India has to be regulated.