ANIL PAL Vs. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT MANDAL GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Cor pus petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 1-5-2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti against him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act and for his release from detention.

(2.) IT has been alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a peace loving and law abid ing citizen and he has not been convicted in any case so far. On 16-2-08 at about 9.30 a.m. a F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Yashwant Chaudhary against him and other co-accused persons under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. at police station Lalganj District Basti and on the basis of that report case crime No. 63/08 was registered against him. On the ba sis of this report the District magistrate, Basti, the respondent No. 2, passed an order against him for his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act on 1-5-08. The pe titioner has challenged the validity of this or der on several grounds in the present Habeas Corpus petition.

(3.) IN support of this contention he cited before us a Division Bench Ruling of this Court in Tunnu v. Superintendent, District Jail, Ballia and others: 2000 (27) A.Cr.R. 611: 2000 All LJ 1428. IN this case also in the grounds of detention, there was almost ver batim reproduction of the report submitted by sponsoring authority with this charge only that the name of the petitioner in the report was substituted by word ' Aap' in the grounds of the detention order. The Court, relying upon a ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Singh v. State of Jand K : (1985) 1 SCC 561: (AIR 1985 SC 764) held that apparently the detention order had been passed in me chanical manner, casually and without appli cation of mind and so it stood vitiated. He also cited before us another ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Vashdev Adnani v. State of Maharashtra and others : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 61. This was a case in which the detention order was passed under Section 3(1)(i) and (iii), COFFPOSA and the detention order was verbatim reproduction of the pro posal of the sponsoring authority except use of the word 'Aap' in the order for the word 'he' in the proposal. It was held that such a detention order suffers from non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority at the time of actual preparation of the deten tion order and grounds thereof and so it was sustainable.