AMAR SINGH CHAHAL Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Singh Chahal petitioner has been detained under section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, (hereafter the Act) by District Magistrate, Chandigarh, vide order dated April 23, 1984, (P.1). He has been supplied the grounds of his detention dated May 1, 1984, (P.3). The petitioner has assailed his detention in the present habeas corpus petition. The detention order P 1 reads :

(2.) THAT you on April 19, 1984 at Chandigarh, organised a procession consisting of about 150/200 persons including leaders of Central Co-ordination Committee of local Gurdwaras and Sikh Institutions, Chandigarh and. A.I.S.S.F. activists, in retaliation of the funeral procession of late Shri Inder Pal Gupta, Chairman of the said Samiti, Chandigarh, taken out by Hindu Suraksha Samiti, Chandigarh, on 18-4-1984, who had been assassinated by extremists on 17-4-1984 at Chandigarh. The said procession was led under your leadership. In that procession, the participants were on a bus and large number of scooters/motorcycles carrying naked swords, iron, rods, other lethal weapons and also some fire arms whereas you were is your own car No. CHB-1098 leading the procession. In the said procession you remained in an agitated mood and incited the processionists who indulged in disorderly manner and vandalism. The procession passed through the markets and side lanes of Sector 15, P.G.I. Chowk road leading to Command Hospital, Engineering College, Sector 11 Gurdwara, Market Sector 10 and then to Sector 9 market. In the procession at your instigation, the following types of provocative slogans were raised by the processionists :

(3.) THE averment of the District Magistrate reproduced above proves that he was aware on April 23, 1984, when the impugned detention order P. 1 was passed that the petitioner was under arrest as a result of the cases registered with the police since April 19, 1984. The petitioner was released on bail on April 25, 1984, in the cases registered with the police. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold that the detaining authority was not aware about the arrest of the petitioner when the impugned detention order was passed on April 23, 1984.