SATYAPRIYA SONKAR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL NAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has challenged his detention under order dated 4-6-1999, passed by respondent no. 2 District Magistrate, Allahabad under S.3(2) of National Security Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to 'Act' ).

(2.) Along with impugned order of detention, petitioner was served the grounds of detention on which basis respondent no. 2 formed his subjective satisfaction for passing the order of preventive detention against him. In grounds served on petitioner allegation against petitioner was that on 29-5-99 he alongwith his companions went to Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad in the evening where the examination of B.A. Part I scheduled for 3.00 P.M. to 6.00 P.M. was in progress. Petitioner and his companions asked principal of the aforesaid Degree College not to check the use of unfair means during the said examination. However, Principal disagreed and said that if the unfair-means are adopted during examination they shall be checked. On this reply, petitioner and his companions felt annoyed and threatened principal for the consequences and they came out of the premises and for creating fear and commotion started throwing bombs in college premises on account of which Head Constable Lakhan Singh became injured. Entire premises of college was covered by the smoke entitled by the bombs. People inside college premises ran helter skelter which obstructed flow of the traffic, nearby shops were closed and public order was completely disturbed. Petitioner and his companions escaped from the place of occurrence. On receiving information about aforesaid incident, additional police force was deployed and after serious efforts the public order could be restored and the examination was completed. For the aforesaid incident case crime No. 326 of 1999, under S. 332, 353, 286,307 of Indian Penal Code and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered in Police Station Kydgunj, Allahabad, which is under investigation.

(3.) It has also been mentioned in the grounds that the petitioner was confined in Central Jail, but his Pairokars were trying for his release on bail. There was strong possibility that the petitioner shall be released on bail and shall again indulge in similar activities, which shall be prejudical to the maintenance of the public order. It has been further stated that on the basis of the aforesaid incident, detaining authority felt satisfied that in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in a any manner prejudical to the maintenance of public order, it became necessary to pass order for detention of petitioner.