NARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition seeking issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the petitioner-Nari @ Narasingh Mohanty challenging the legality of the order of his detention dated 15.11.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on the ground that such order as well as approval of the same is unconstitutional and illegal.

(2.) Petitioner's case in a nut-shell is that opposite party No.3- Collector and District Magistrate, Ganjam on a proposal of the report of opposite party No.4-Superintendent of Police, Ganjam in exercise of power under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'NS Act') passed the order of detention on 15.11.2013 directing detention of the petitioner-detenu in sub-jail, Kodala until further orders. Thereafter, opposite party No.3 served the grounds of detention on the petitioner vide order No.1243 dated 16.11.2013.

(3.) Learned counsel, Mr.Dipti R. Mohapatra appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in order to justify petitioner's detention under Section 3 of the NS Act, opposite Party No.3 has referred to certain cases and station diaries made at Rambha Police Station against the detenu which reveal cognizable offences. In most of those cases, petitioner is on bail. The grounds of detention further reveal that since there is possibility of the petitioner being released on bail, the order of detention was passed. Opposite party No.2-State being represented through the Secretary to Government in the Department of Home (Special Section), without considering legality of the petitioner's detention order has approved the same vide order No.3094/C dated 26.11.2013 under Annexure-3. On perusal of the entire criminal background of the petitioner, it appears that there is no material to show that the petitioner is an accused of any case relating to the offences enumerated under Chapter-VI of the Indian Penal Code. Every citizen in this country has the right to take recourse to law. He has the right to move the Court for bail when he is arrested under the ordinary law of the land. If the State thinks that he does not deserve bail, the State can oppose to the grant of bail. He cannot, however, be interdicted from moving the Court for bail by issuing an order of detention. There is no material to show that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he would act prejudicially to the interest of public. Merely because there are number of criminal cases against the petitioner that does not validate the order of detention passed under Section 3 of the NS Act, particularly when no case of breach of public order is made out. Various cases filed against the petitioner relate to inter-se personal dispute, but not with regard to the breach of public order. In absence of the same, the order of detention amounts to depriving the petitioner from his constitutional right to life and liberty.