BRAHMA SAKHARAM PATIL Vs. N C VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions the detenus have challenged the orders of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, detaining them under the provisions of the National Security Act. Since both these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Shri Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before us that the incidents alleged in the grounds of detention were due to the previous enemity between two groups and were confined to the members of the said groups only and, therefore had no nexus with the maintenance of public order. At the most it could involve the question of law and order and nothing more. Further he contended that some of the documents supplied to the detenu were wholly illegible. In some, material portion was omitted, which clearly amounted to non-communication of the said grounds of detention. It was also his case that there has been delay in considering the representations made by the detenus to the State Government as well as to the Central Government. He also contended that vital material which could have weighed with the detaining authority one way or the other, was not placed before the detaining authority viz, the orders of bail passed by the competent courts of law. According to him it is an admitted position that both the detenus were released on bail on 16th of January 1986 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, so far as the first incident dated 13th of December 1985 is concerned. They were released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class so far as the second incident dated 20th January 1986 is concerned. In the grounds of detention the detaining authority bas not made any reference either to the bail applications filed by the detenus or the orders of bail passed by the competent courts of law. Further the orders passed on the bail applications were not simplicitor orders granting bail but certain conditions were imposed upon the detenus and, therefore, there was no possibility that the detenus could have involved themselves in similar activities in future.

(3.) On the other band it is contended by Shri Hombalkar the learned Public Prosecutor, that it is not correct to say that the incidents in which the detenus were involved had no nexus with the maintenance of public order. Enormity and gravity of the detenus activities clearly indicate that they had created a reign of terror in the locality which had direct nexus with the maintenance of public order. It is also not correct to say that some of the documents supplied to the detenus are either not readable or some portion from it was omitted. What was omitted was merely the endorsement by the Doctor on the dying declaration, which was not relevant nor the delaining authority had relied upon the said endorsement. What was relied upon was the statement of Balaram, copies of which were supplied to the detenus. He also contended that there was no delay in considering the representations made by the detenus either on the part of the State Government or the Central Government. So far as the last contention regarding non-placement of the orders of bail passed on the bail applications filed by the detenus are concerned, it is contended by Shri Hombalkar that such a contention was not raised in specific terms in the writ petitions though now raised by amendment. However, he could not dispute that in fact the orders passed by the competent courts on the bail applications filed by the detenus were not placed before the detaining authority.