HARIDAS DEKA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by one Haridas Deka under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against an order of detention passed by the learned District Magistrate, Kamrup, dated 8.1.52, in the exorcise of the powers conferred by Sub -section (2) of Section 3 read with Sub -clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub -section (1) of Section 3, and Section 4, Preventive Detention Act of 1950 (Act IV (4) of 1950), as amended by the Preventive Detention Act of 1951 (Act IV [4] of 1951) The grounds of detention as communicated to the petitioner are these:

(2.) I cannot regard the present order of detention as having been passed in pursuance of the satisfaction of the learned District Magistrate with respect to the petitioner that it was necessary to pass an order of detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to any of the purposes mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. It seems to me that when a person is not free to act at all, as when he is in Jail custody, the question of satisfaction in terms of Section 3 of the Act does not arise. By reason of his confinement as an under trial prisoner in Jail custody, the petitioner was already prevented from acting in any manner prejudicial to the purposes mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. When a person is already prevented from so acting by reason of his detention in Jail custody, it is, I think, futile to say that the detaining authority is satisfied with respect to the petitioner that its is necessary to pass an order of detention against him. The element of satisfaction must necessarily relate to a point of time when a person has freedom of action. If he has no freedom of action as for instance, when he is in Jail custody, as I have said before, the question of satisfaction does not arise.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , I set aside the order of detention passed against the petitioner and direct that he be released and set at liberty forthwith, unless he is otherwise liable to be detained.