JAMMILLA BEGAM ABDUL JABBAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of detention of one Abdul Jabbar Usman, passed by the 1st respondent on 18th July, 1990 under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the detenu Abdul Jabbar Usman was involved in an incident dated 21st May, 1990 in a running BEST Bus in a section of City of Bombay. In the said incident, the petitioner and his other five associates successfully decamped with a brief case containing cash from one of the passengers after showing an open razor and knife and also threatened the other passengers in the bus. There was chaos and terror in the bus. Shrieks of passengers were heard. Ultimately, when the bus was halted the detenu and his associates escaped in the crowd. Crime No. 311 of 1990 was registered against the detenu and his associates. After intensive search the detenu was arrested on 24th May, 1990 and was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. After a few days of remand, the learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ordered the release of the detenu on bail on 14th June, 1990. It is averred and not disputed that the detenu had not availed of the bail order from the date it was issued till 18th July, 1990 when the impugned order of detention came to be passed. In fact the detenu had not availed of the bail even upto 23rd July, 1990 when the impugned order of detention was served upon him while in custody.

(3.) IN the grounds of detention it is further alleged that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu had not availed of the bail order yet he was satisfied that if released on bail sooner or later, he was likely to be indulged in prejudicial activities in future. It was also observed in the grounds that from the statement of the detenu recorded during the investigation he had confessed that he was a leader of a gang of pick-pockets and that it was under his instructions that the gang members operated this racket in the BEST Buses. In view of all this, the Detaining Authority came to the conclusion that it was necessary to detain the subject in order to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities in future. The said order of detention and the Grounds of Detention are annexed to this petition as Exhibits `a and `b respectively.