DHRUBAJYOTI BHUYAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The focal points of attack, in this habeas corpus application, centre around Ground Nos. 4 and 5, which we extract hereinbelow : -

(2.) It has been contended by Mrs. B. Dutta, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner that Ground No. 4 was non-existent at all relevant times, as Annexure-4 the sole basic material furnished to the petitioner in support of "the ground" does not implicate the detenu directly, indirectly or in any form whatsoever. Insofar as Ground No. 5 is concerned, it has been urged that the ground suffers from vagueness, non-furnishing of the basic facts and materials, non-application of the mind of the detaining authority and the ground was non-existent. We had the advantage of hearing learned Advocate General, Assam on behalf of the State and Mr. S. N. Chetia, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, Central Government.

(3.) Let us turn to Ground No. 4. It will be seen that grave and serious allegations have been pictured therein against the detenu as the author of throwing of explosive on 19-5-83 at about 7 p. m. on A.T. Road at Jorhat town or he was at least an associate. Along with the grounds the document marked Annexure 4 was furnished to the detenu, which we extract -