MD ABDUL ZAHUR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is an application for habeas corpus filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (in short the ConstitutionT) by the petitioner-Md. Abdul Zahur, a cousin of Safe Sd. Imran Ali (hereinafter called the detenu), who is detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short Tthe Act) challenging the order of detention dated 30-12-1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Kendrapara, vide Annexure-1, as also the order of approval passed by the State Government vide Annexure-4.

(2.) The grounds on which the order of detention has been directed, as stated in the grounds of detention (Annexure-2), are that the detenu was creating havoc in Kendrapara thereby disturbing public order and in spite of being arrested and forwarded to custody on, a number of times earlier, his anti-social activities continued to be unabated; that after release on bail, he continued to commit further offence more vigorously and was terrorising and intimidating the witnesses, and informants of the cases, instituted against him in order to scuttle the criminal justice system; and that immediately prior to the impugned order of detention on 11-9-1998, while he was under police custody at Dillarpur temporary out-post, on being informed about his arrest in connection with Kendrapara P.S. Case Nos. 477/98 and 479/98, all of a sudden, he brought out a revolver concealed in his waist and aimed at S.I.R. N. Padhi and Inspector S.K. Chand and threatened to kill them and escaped from their lawful custody. It is further indicated therein that there are also several other cases pending against the detenu. In order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detention was felt necessary any as it was felt by the Detaining Authority that in case the detenu was released on bail he would continue his criminal and anti social activities, the impugned order of detention vide Annexure-1 has been passed in the larger interest to prevent the anti-social activities of the detenu which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquility.

(3.) Several grounds have been urged in support of the application by Shri R.N. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, it is submitted that in the grounds of detention although the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in jail custody and as there was no material to show that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the detention order was passed without application of mind. Secondly, it is urged that although on 23-1-1999 representations were sent to the State Government and the Central Government from the jail custody through the District Magistrate, such representations have not yet been disposed of by the Central Government and the State Government. This fact is highlighted by the petitioner in-para 12 of the writ petition. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the instant case in spite of repeated direction and time granted to file counter-affidavit, O.P. Nos. 2, 3 and 4, i.e., the District Magistrate, Kendrapara, Superintendent, Jail, Choudwar, and the Union of India, respectively, did not file any counter affidavit and accordingly the matter was heard and is being disposed of on the basis of the materials on record.