USHA DURGAPARSAD BAKHALE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is the wife of one Durgaprasad Prasan-nakumar Bakhale. THE respondent is the Commissioner of Police, Bombay. THE petition states that the respondent got the said Durgaprasad Prasannakumar Bakhale arrested on September 9, 1947, when the house of the said Durgaprasad was searched, but nothing objectionable was found by the police in the house. Nevertheless the respondent detained the said Durgaprasad at the Esplanade police lock-up and on September 11, 1947, the said Durgraprasad was served with a notice dated September 11, 1947, under Section 3 of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act of 1947 and that he has now been detained at the Worli Temporary Prison under Order No.486 of 1947 purporting to have been issued by the respondent under the said Act. THE notice dated September 11, 1947, which was served on Durgaprasad reads as follows : That you have instigated and actively helped by providing funds to suspect Laxman and his accomplices for the purpose of stabbing Muslims in Kamatipura area and are concerned in stabbing incidents, bomb throwing incidents in Kamatipura area either as an instigator, active helper or actual perpetrator or financier and are thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the peace of Greater Bombay.

(2.) THE petitioner denies all these allegations and sets out the activities useful and innocent in which her husband was engaged. In paragraph 5 of the petition it is stated that it appears that Durgaprasad was arrested in consequence of a statement made by the suspect Laxman. THE petitioner submits that the statement of the accused person Laxman cannot justify the respondent in taking action against Durgaprasad under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act and she submits that the order was made on incorrect facts and false information. In paragraph 8 of the petition it is submitted that the order made against Durgaprasad by the respondent was illegal, void and of no legal effect and that the same was not made bona fide in proper exercise of his duty by the respondent. THE petitioner prays that the respondent may be ordered to produce Durgaprasad before this Court (which has accordingly been done) and that Durgaprasad be set at liberty.

(3.) SO far as Section 2 (1) is concerned, Mr. Talpade relies on the words "any person is acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety. " His argument is that the order of September 11, 1947, mentioned a thing which happened in the past, namely, that the detenu had instigated and actively helped by providing funds and weapons to suspect Laxman and his accomplices. Mr. Talpade told me that that was an event which took place in the past about some months before the date of the order. The learned Advocate General was not prepared to accept the correctness of that statement. In my opinion if it was the intention of the petitioner to show that the help given to Laxman was so remote in point of time as to make it an event which the Commissioner of Police should in no circumstances have allowed to affect his judgment, then it was necessary for the petitioner to set out in terms that fact. The Advocate General, however, points out that this incident is not the only thing which influenced the decision of the Commissioner of Police. The order proceeds to say : And are concerned in stabbing incidents and bomb throwing incidents in Kamatipura area etc. and are thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the peace of Greater Bombay. I asked Mr. Talpade whether his contention was that it is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power that the person "is acting" at the very moment the order is made. Mr. Talpade was not prepared to push his argument to that extent. In my opinion the petitioner's contention in this behalf is not well-founded in law, In any event the other part of the order shows that no objection could be sustained as to its validity.