RAMESHALIASWAGHARI RAMESH Vs. SATISH SAHNEY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention of the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980. Rule was issued. Respondents have filed their returns.

(2.) The petitioner came to be detained by a detention order dated 18th May, 1995 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under the provisions of section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner. He had made a representation to the Central Government against the order of detention. The Central Government rejected the representation. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition challenging his detention on many grounds.

(3.) The grounds of detention show that the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under the Act in question because of his prejudicial and terrorist activities as detailed in the grounds of detention. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner and his henchmen are criminals indulging in terrorist activities and have become potential danger to the safety of peace loving and law abiding citizens of the areas and localities of Prabhat Colony, Seva Nagar, Chakki Khan and other areas of Bombay. It is also alleged that the petitioner and his associates have been moving openly in the areas with arms like choppers, revolvers, swords, knives etc. They are indulging in committing offences like extortion, assault, abduction, robbery, criminal intimidation, molestation of women etc. In particular, the grounds of detention show certain specified acts against the detenu. It is alleged that on 16th January, 1995, the petitioner and his associates being armed with weapons, in particular petitioner being armed with a revolver went to the house of Mangesh Khedekar. They knocked the door of the house of said Mangesh and on his opening the door, all of them entered his house and started assaulting the said Mangesh with weapons in their hands. The said Mangesh was mercilessly beaten. Then when some people came there, the petitioner and his associates ran away. Mangesh was admitted to hospital for treatment. It is also alleged that on the complaint of Mangesh, the police have registered a case in C.R. No. 57 of 1995 for offences punishable under sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. In the said case, the petitioner came to be arrested on 27th February, 1995. His associates were arrested earlier. It is also stated that on 6th March, 1995, the learned Magistrate passed an order granting bail to the petitioner, but the petitioner has not yet availed the order of bail. It is alleged that on 15th February, 1995, in another incident, the petitioner being armed with a gupti and a sword and his associates also armed with weapons approached one Dhanji Maharaj and threatened him by pointing out a knife and demanded money. When Dhanji pleaded helplessness, the petitioner and his associates pulled him out of the shop and then assaulted him with fists and kicks. When one Kanhaiyalal tried to intervene, one of the petitioner's associates assaulted him with a sword and caused a bleeding injury to him. When another shop-keeper Bhailal tried to intervene, he was also assaulted with a sword. The whole area due to this incident was gripped with fear and tension. The pedestrians got scared and started running helter-skelter. The customers in the neighbouring shops took to their heels. The shopkeepers in the area pulled down their shutters. The tempo of the life of citizens in that area was badly affected. It is also alleged that the petitioner and his associates forcibly removed Dhanji Maharaj to another place and forcibly took Rs. 1500/- from his shirt pocket. When the police van came there, the petitioner and his associates ran away after assaulting Dhanji Maharaj. In that connections the police have registered a case in C.R. No. 153 of 1995 of Vakola Police Station for offences under sections 363, 397 and 324 I.P.C. and also for an offence under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. A confidential enquiry and been made against the petitioner and his associates. Some witnesses had been examined in camera who have spoken about unlawful activities of the petitioner and his associates. In view of these allegations, the Commissioner of Police has passed the order in question stating that the detention of the petitioner in custody is necessary to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the welfare of the people.