KEWAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relates to quashment of impugned order of detention against Kewal Singh detenu passed by the Distt. Magistrate, Jalandhar, Annexure P- 1 dated 14th February, 1989 under Sections 3(2) read with Sections 3(3) and 14-A of the National Security Act, 1980 as amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as order of confirmation passed by the State.of Punjab, Annexure P-3, dated 24th February, 1989.

(2.) THE details of the alleged prejudicial activities find mention in the grounds of detention Annexure P2. These mainly relate to conspiracy said to have been hatched up in the year 1986 between the detenu while he was posted as a Constable at PAP Headquarters, Jalandhar Cantt, along with other police officials including co-detenu Manjit Singh, who too was posted as a Constable in the PAP, to kill Shri J.F. Ribeiro, the then Director General of Police, Punjab as the latter had insulted the Sikhism and injured the sentiments of the Sikhs by sending the police in the Golden Temple, Amritsar and had killed many Sikh youths in fake police encounters and was committing atrocities on the Sikhs. These allegations include murderous assault made on the life of Shri J.F. Ribeiro on the morning of 3rd, October 1986. In that occurrence two Constables were shot dead whereas three others were injured and case FIR No. 69 dated 3-10-1989 under Sections 302/307/148/149/120-B/419/170 IPC., 25 Arms Act and 3/4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was registered against the detenu and other co-detenus. The detenu was admittedly arrested in the case on 8.11.1986 and was granted bail by the Designated Court, at Sangrur and surety bonds were accepted on 18th January, 1989. According to the allegations of the detenu he was re-arrested when he came out of the jail, kept in illegal custody and subsequently involved in another case relating to FIR No. 9 dated 3-2-1989 under Sections 212, 446-A and under Sections 34 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, whereas according to the plea taken by the State in its reply the detenu was re-arrested on 3rd February, 1989 in, the aforesaid criminal case and that the order of detention was passed with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of State and interference with the efforts of the Government in coping with terrorist and disruptive activities. The second case against the detenu is that he and his co-detenu, Manjit Singh gave shelter to the extremfsts in Kothi No. 28 Haqikat Road, Jalandhar Cantt and both the said detenus were said to have given financial aid, meals, clothes and had kept the arms of the extremists with them and supplied the same when needed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the detenu placed reliance on the Single Bench authority of this Court in Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1990 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 487 (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1706 of 1989) decided on 20th December 1989, wherein Chief Justice S.S. Dewan (as his lordship then was) quashed the order of detention dated 14-2-1989 and subsequent confirmatory order. It is conceded by both the counsel that Manjit Singh detenu in the afore-cited authority as well as Kewal Singh detenu in the present petition were arrested together in the aforesaid two criminal cases and impugned orders of detention and confirmation were passed against them on identical grounds. In Manjit Singh case (Supra) order of detention and order of confirmation were quashed mainly on the ground that apart from registration of criminal case against the petitioner (Manjit Singh) no other reliable material has been brought on record to show that the petitioner, if released on bail was likely to commit activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of the State or that there were compelling reason's to justify his preventive detention in view of the fact that the petitioner was already under detention on various charges for committing criminal offence.