SIDHYA GOPAL MISRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code for issue of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent. State of West Bengal to release the petitioner Sidhya Gopal Misra from detention.

(2.) The petitioner is a resident of Suri town within the district of Birbhum and was living with his widowed mother and his elder brother who was himself a student of the local college. His father was a local landlord and had considerable properties at Suri and other places in the district of Birbhum. He was a student of the I. T. I School at Suri. On May 6, 1966 an order under Sub-section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act 4 of 1950), purported to be passed by respondent No. 4, District Magistrate at Suri was served on him and he was taken into custody. The petitioner contends that his father was lying seriously ill for several years before his death and practically became invalid for more than 6 years. During this period interested persons and relations became inimical to them with intent to grab the properties and started making false allegations against him. These persons colluded with the local police officers and made unlawful and unauthorised demands from them and threattened to put them to trouble As a result false allegations started to be made against him since about 1961 when he was only 14, and this impugned order under the Preventive Detention Act was served on him and he was taken into custody. The petitioner contends that he was not given any opportunity of being heard and was not heard against this order under the Preventive Detention Act and his case was not placed before the Advisory Board. The petitioner further states that the alleged criminal charges were made and alleged to have happened when he was a minor and in any case they are too remote and of distant dates to justify an order under the Preventive Detention Act. The grounds besides were also too vague, remote and indefinite as a result of which he was prevented from making effective representation to the Advisory Board. This application has therefore been filed through his mother for an order under Section 491 Cr. P. C. directing the respondent State of West Bengal to release him from detention.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent, the District Magistrate of Birbhum has sworn an affidavit-in-opposition supporting all the grounds given in the order of detention. The District Magistrate has specifically denied that the order of detention was passed by him as a result of any manipulation by Officer-in-charge of Suri Police Station; he has stated that he himself issued the order of detention being personally satisfied on a consideration of all material facts and particulars in the report of the Superintendent of Police that it was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of public order in the locality that the petitioner be put in preventive detention. He has further stated that the detenu made a representation on the 17th May, 1968 dealing with the grounds set out in the grounds of detention and that at no point of time did he complain of any vagueness or indefiniteness of any of the said grounds nor did he call for any further particulars from him regarding any of the grounds set out in the grounds of detention. The District Magistrate in his affidavit has further stated that the detenu's representation against the order of detention was duly placed before the Advisory Board which considered the representation and upheld the detention order. The affidavit further discloses that there was an enquiry by the Sub-divisional Officer on the allegations made by the detenu's mother against the Officer-in-charge but the allegations were found to be groundless. The Officer-in-charge Byomkesh Bhattacharjee has also sworn a support-tag affidavit stating that he was never at Suri Police Station during the period 1961-62 when the complaints were recorded against the detenu at the police station nor did he enquire into any of these. He also denied that he ever proposed to purchase any tank or any other property from the mother of the detenu or that he had any grudge against the detenu or made any false complaint and reports against him.