JYOTI PRASAD BARUAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions relate to one detenu; Rule in one was issued having received a communication from jail, and the other is a regular petition challenging the detention under the provisions of the National Security. Act, 1980, hereinafter the Act.

(2.) WE have been called upon to adjudge the legality of an order passed on 19 -2 -83, the grounds of which are dated 23 -2 -83 and read: - "On Feb. 12, 1983 at about 23.30 hours you along with Phatik Bora and Ghana Bakalial laid an ambush to a C. R. P. F. foot patrol by concealing yourselves behind boundary wall of H. F. C. Namrup L. P. School and attacked the CRPF party by throwing a bomb first and then one round of fire from a stengun. When the C. R. P. F. made counter -attack your two associates fled away and you were caught red -handed with a stengun, two magazines with 31 rounds ammunition, and three hand bombs. Your activity described above is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and your detention is immediately necessary."

(3.) SHRI Medhi appearing for the petitioner contends that though the allegations are serious, this may not weigh with us inasmuch as even a bully or a bad character is entitled to as much legal protection at our hand as is anybody else and the constitutional safeguards given in this connection are available equally to all. This proposition is indisputable. Let us, however, see if any of the safeguards was really denied to the writ petitioner; and whether the order is bad on any other count. Shri Medhi has assailed the validity, first, by contending that the grounds were not in existence when the order was passed which is apparent from the fact, according to the learned Counsel that the two communications bear different dates. We had occasion to deal with such submission in detail in Mahendra Mohan Choudhuary v. State of Assam (Civil Rule (HC) 42/83 disposed of on 28 -4 -83). As pointed out therein, such a conclusion cannot follow from the mere fact that the order of detention bears a date anterior to that of grounds. Of course, if it would be a case of non -existence of grounds, the matter would definitely be different as noted in Mahendra Mohan (supra) itself. To satisfy us. whether it was a case of non -existence of 'grounds', which expression has to be understood in this context to mean basic facts and factual materials as explained in Mahendra Mohan, we have perused the records of the District Magistrate and we find that the facts mentioned in the 'grounds' as communicated to the detenu are in the dossier which was enclosed along with the letter of the Superintendent, of Police, Dibrugarh dated 17 -2 -83 addressed to the District Magistrate, Dibrugarh. As such, the basic facts which were mentioned in the grounds cannot be said to be non -existent. This submission has, therefore, no force.