MD. RAJU @ MD. AZIM Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, the petitioner has assailed legality of order of detention dated 16.10.2011 under Annexure-5 based on the grounds of detention dated 18.10.2011 issued by opposite party no.3 detaining authority and approved by opposite party no.1 State of Odisha under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Petitioner's case is that on receipt of grounds of detention dated 18.10.2011 under Annexure-6, he submitted representations under Annexure-7 before the Advisory Board, the State Government and the Central Government on 23.10.2011. Orders of the State Government rejecting the representation was communicated by letter dated 21.11.2011 under Annexure-2 and of the Central Government rejecting the representation was communicated by wireless message dated 18.11.2011 under Annexure-3. Further the State Government confirmed the detention order on 8.12.2011. Thus, there was delay of twenty nine days by the State Government and of twenty six days by the Central Government in considering the petitioner's representations. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that out of twelve criminal cases referred to in support of the grounds of detention the petitioner had been acquitted in eight cases by the time the detention order was passed. The other four cases were sub-judice. Without application of mind, the detaining authority placed reliance on the cases in which the petitioner had been acquitted. All those cases related to the incidents which allegedly took place between 1991 to 1996. Out of the four other cases which are sub-judice, one case relates to the alleged incident dated 18.9.2002, one case relates to the alleged incident dated 20.12.2006 and two cases relate to alleged incidents dated 10.7.2011 and 28.7.2011 respectively. Therefore, pendency of cases could not be said to constitute continuance of criminal activities as alleged in the grounds of detention. It is also averred by the petitioner that his liberty cannot be curtailed on the basis of cryptic and unreasoned orders passed by the State and Central Governments under Annexures-3 and 4 respectively.

(3.) In dealing with the contention that orders of the State and Central Governments rejecting petitioner's representations were cryptic and unreasoned, it is found pertinent to reproduce the orders under Annexures- 2 and 3.