PRADEEP SAHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of power conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, the District Magistrate, Sambalpur passed order dated 8-4-2012 (Annexure-1) directing detention of the petitioner Pradip Sahu in the Circle Jail, Sambalpur until further orders with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On 10-4-2012, the order of detention was served on the petitioner detenu in Circle Jail, Sambalpur where he was in intermediate judicial custody in connection with Thelkuli P. S. Case No. 42 dated 25-3-2012 under Section 387/ 341/429/506/34,IPC. The detention order was approved by the State Government on 19-4-2012. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the State Government which was rejected by the State Government on 16-5-2012 which was communicated to the petitioner on 21-5-2012 vide Annexure-3. Copy of the representation and para wise report was sent to the Government of India on 21-5-2012 Which was rejected by the Central Government on 30-5-2012. The detention order was confirmed by the State Government on 12-6-2012.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of detention Annexure-1 as well as the order of the State Government, rejecting his representation and confirming the order of detention, vide Annexures and 5 respectively on the ground that the order of detention has been passed without application of mind and without regard to the procedure laid down under law and without considering his representation; the grounds of detention do not make out a case of disturbance of public order warranting detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act; and since the detenu wa, already in intermediate judicial custody, there was no necessity of the order of preventive detention.

(3.) Mr: A. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one of the grounds on the basis of which the order of detention dated 8-4-2012 has been passed by 'the Col-lector-cum-District Magistrate, Sambalpur that there is possibility of the petitioner being released on bail, is not sustainable in law. Another ground of challenge of the detention order is that it discloses 20 cases against the petitioner starting from the year 2002 onwards, out of which one is under Section 110, two cases are mere Station Diary entries, in five cases the petitioner has not been named in the F. I. R., but subsequently impleaded on the basis of the 161 statement, three cases registered due to family rivalry, in six cases the petitioner has been implicated at the instance of one company, namely, M/s. Aryan Ispat Ltd. in three cases he has been implicated due to political rivalry relating to Gram Panchayat Election etc., in two cases, the police has implicated him on the allegation of preparation of dacoity although there is no antecedents regarding commission of dacoity, in two cases the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent Courts, in one case under Section 302/34, IPC criminal appeal has been filed before this Court, wherein he has been granted bail and against the said order, the Special Leave Petition has been preferred for cancellation of bail at the instance of the informant, but not by the State Government. The narration of the facts and grounds mentioned in the order of detention, would reveal that except a few cases, in all other cases, the offences are triable by Magistrate First Class. It is further contended by him that the Home Department received information regarding detention on 11-4-2012 along with relevant materials and on 19-4-2012, the order of detention was approved and the said order was communicated to the Ministry of Home, Government of India and Secretary, National Security Advisory Board. Therefore, there is no application of mind on the part of the State Government while confirming the order of detention. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.