LALITABAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife of the detenu Radheshyam Rathore @ Jhot s/o Badrilal Rathore has filed this petition for habeas corpus assailing the preventive detention of her husband vide order dated 01.01.2008 (Annexure. P/1 & P/1-A) passed by the District Magistrate, Indore in exercise of the power conferred by the Sub-Section (2) of the Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (here-in- after referred to as the Act). Along with the order, of detention, grounds of detention dated 1st January, 2008 were also furnished in which it was stated that the detenu has pursued the course of crime and on account of 40 serious offences committed by him, witnesses were unwilling to unfold the truth before the Court and terrorized by his activities, they were compounding the offences. It was also stated that preventive action taken against him proved ineffective and although he was detained on 30.06.2004 under the provisions of the Act, after he was released from jail, he resumed his criminal activities. In order to show the criminal propensities of the detenu, in schedule, as many as 11 serious offences have been enumerated.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if each offence mentioned in the schedule to the grounds of detention, is taken at its face value, the offences relate merely to "law and order" and not "public order", with the result, the detenu could not have been detained under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act and the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, stands vitiated. In relation to ground No. 11 of the schedule, learned counsel has submitted that although in the first information report, it is mentioned that the detenu along with others recklessly fired at the. complainant, recital to the effect that the said act terrorized the public of the locality and they started running helter- skelter and the shop keepers closed down their shops, is not evidenced by the accompanying first information report of the Crime No.532/07. Learned counsel has further submitted that delay in deciding the representation has also not been explained; with the result, the detention is rendered illegal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that right from the year 2004, after the release of the detenu from the earlier detention, the detenu is engaged in criminal activities, which clearly indicate his propensities and deterrnination to lead a life .of crime. He has further submitted that the other incidents apart, incident dated 23.12.2007 clearly indicated that his recklessly firing at the complainant had created panic in the mind of the public who started running helter- skelter and shop keepers started pulling down their shutters. It was, therefore, clearly a case of activities prejudicial to the "public order". Learned State counsel has also pointed out that if there is cogent material on which the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based, it cannot be interferred with merely because the inference of the counsel for the detenu is not in tune with that of the Detaining Authority.