LALA ALIAS AHMED Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for his release.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 6-9-1999 District Magistrate Badwani, being subjectively satisfied on the material produced by Superintendent of Police Badwani, that it was necessary to put the petitioner in detention to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and disturbing communal harmony, passed detention order Ex. P. 1 u/S 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The petitioner was arrested on 12-9-1999 and was put in detention on 13-9-1999 in Badwani jail. On 16-9-1999 the State Govt. approved the order of detention (R-5). On 23-9-1999 the detention order was sent for consideration of Advisory Board u/S 10 of the Act. The Advisory Board opined on 5-10-1999 that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner vide Annexture R/8.Thereafter the State Govt. confirmed this order vide order dated 21-10-1999 (R/9) for 12 months detention.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the detaining authority passed the impugned order mechanically without application of mind. The grounds of detention do not have any nexus to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority did not supply the petitioner all factual material and sources for submitting effective representation, due to this the petitioner could not submit his representation under Article 22 (5) of the constitution of India. The petitioner was not supplied the copies of the statements records u/S 161 of the Cr. P.C. , F.I. Rs. and other documents of Criminal cases mentioned in the schedule and, thus, he was deprived of exercising his valuable right under clause 5 of Article 22. The criminal cases mentioned in ground Nos. 1 to 5 are false and related to individuals and not to the public order. The conclusion of the detaining authority that the petitioner was acting prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and was engaged in disturbing communal harmony, could not be arrived at by a prudent person. The crime nos. shown in grounds Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 are bailable offences except S. 294 and they are related to individual. The incident mentioned in ground Nos. 6 to 8 were not related to public order. Ground Nos. 9 to 11 were false. Most of the offences are compoundable. The respondent No. 1, State Govt. illegally confirmed the detention order without considering his representation.