RAJ BAHADUR VERMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Raj Bahadur Verma has impugned the order dated 26-6-2003 issued by Mr. C. P. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, Uttar Pradesh Administration on behalf of Government of Uttar Pradesh, detaining him under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The detention order along with grounds of detention, which are also dated 26 June, 2003 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 30 June, 2003 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure No. 1 collectively to the writ petition.

(2.) The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu prompting the State of Uttar Pradesh to issue the impugned detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention. In short their perusal shows as under : On 21-12-2002 at about 9-30 p.m. a police party of Police Station Jaidpur, district Barabanki reached near culvert in village Shahpur Kareda. It saw two persons coming from the side of Shapur Kareda. When they noticed the vehicle in which the police party was travelling they tried to run away but the police party apprehended them. From the possession of the petitioner-detenu it recovered 3 kilograms of morphine and from that of his associate Jhabbar 100 grams of morphine. The petitioner disclosed that he used to manufacture morphine. Jhabbar disclosed that the morphine recovered from him had been purchased by him from the petitioner. On the basis of the said recovery the police party arrested the petitioner and Jhabbar for an offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. It sent the sample of the morphine recovered from the petitioner and Jhabbar to the Chemical Analyst at Lucknow, who reported that the sample contained morphine. In the grounds of detention it has been mentioned that the detenu had given an application for bail, dated 30th January, 2003 in the Court of SpecialJudge, N.D.P.S. Act, Barabanki which was rejected on 19th February, 2003. It has also been mentioned therein that since there was every possibility that he would apply again for bail and on being released on bail would commit similar prejudicial activities, it was imperative to preventively detain him. In the grounds of detention the detenu has also been apprised of his right to prefer a representation to the various authorities.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition Mr. V. P. Nag, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a number of pleadings and taken a number of grounds but he has pressed before us the pleadings contained in paragraphs 7 to 11 of the writ petition and grounds (D)(E) and (F) of paragraph 17 thereof. A perusal of the pleadings contained in the aforesaid paragraphs and grounds would make it manifest that the petitioner-detenu has taken offence to the impugned detention order on a dual ground, namely :