BAKHTAWAR SINGH BISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PEPSU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bakhtawar Singh who was arrested under the orders of the District Magistrate, Sangrur and was detained under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act, has made a petition, under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure for his release. Several grounds have been taken in the petition, but the only one urged before me is that the grounds-of detention supplied to the Petitioner were vague and consequently the order of detention was illegal. Since this ground by itself goes. to the root of the case, it is not necessary for me to go into other points taken in the petition.

(2.) The first ground of detention was that a. group of dacoits consisting of Kripal and others was at large and was engaged in committing dacoities, murders and other" heinous crimes in the ilaqa of police station Longowal and other villages of Sangrur, Bhatinda and Barnala districts and as a result of the nefarious activities of the said gang, residents of the said police stations were terror-stricken and public order was seriously disturbed. The second ground was that from the material in possession of the District Magistrate he was satisfied that the Petitioner had formed a party with two of his relatives the object of which was to harbour the said gang of dacoits, afford them protection and give them food, with the result that the police was being seriously handicapped in arresting the dacoits. The remaining two grounds, i.e. grounds 3 and 4 related to incidents alleged to have happened on 24-12-1952 and 4-1-1953 when the detenu harboured the dacoits mentioned above, supplied them tea, meals, liquor etc. and the dacotts requested one of the Petitioner's relatives for supply of cartridges. The Petitioner's counsel argued that since the first two grounds were altogether vague and indefinite and it was impossible for the Petitioner to make a representation in regard to them, the order of detention made on the basis thereof was not-legal.

(3.) Mr. Chetan Das, learned Counsel for the State, took up the position that the first ground did not constitute a ground of detention at all. He argued that it merely referred to certain facts which when taken into consideration along with the facts referred to in the other grounds, explained the reason why the Petitioner had been detained. In my opinion this contention is devoid of force, because in the grounds of detention supplied to the Petitioner by the District Magistrate at the time he was detained, which have been placed on record by the Petitioner and the correctness of which is not denied by Mr. Chetan Dass, four grounds of detention are given and the first relates to the existence of the group of dacoits consisting of Chiri and others. The opening words OF the document supplied to the Petitioner are, In pursuance of the provisions of Section 7, Preventive Detention Act, 1950 as amended up-to-date, you, (Then Follows the name of the Petitioner) are hereby informed that the grounds of your detention ordered by me under Section 3 of the said Act are as follows", and after this are given the four grounds including the one mentioned above which is described as No. 1. But even if we assume that the first is not a real ground of detention, the same cannot be said with regard to the second ground and after reading it I have not the slightest hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is vague and indefinite inasmuch as it gives no particulars except stating that according to the material in the possession of the District Magistrate the Petitioner had formed a party with his other relatives the object of which was to harbour dacoits etc.