DESA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER , annexure P. 1 was passed by the District Magistrate, Amritsar, for the arrest of the petitioner and his detention in Central Jail, Amritsar, under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act) on 9th December, 1986. Grounds of detention are given in annexure P. 2 and they were served on the petitioner. The detention order was ultimately confirmed on 13th March, 1987 vide annexure P-3. Annexure PA is the representation made by the petitioner on 4th January. 1987. Advisory Board had made a report for approving the detention of the - petitioner. The detention order in this petition is challenged mainly on two grounds :

(2.) NO doubt, it is mentioned in the detention order that the petitioner was already in custody and it is also mentioned that in the event of his being released he was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance, of public order and security of State in view of his prima facie propensity towards such activities but the District Magistrate did not consider the remote possibility of the petitioner being released on bail because the petitioner had not even put in any application for bail before any Court and if this aspect of the case had been looked into, the detention order was not called for. The detaining authority has to consider the whole matter before passing any such order. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, was directed to execute the detention order by arresting him and lodging him in Central Jail, Amritsar, where the grounds of detention in Punjabi along with an English translation thereof and the purporting material were to be supplied to the petitioner against a proper receipt within the stipulated period. Confirmation order, annexure P. 3 was conveyed vide memo., No. 127-2H-III (NSA)-86/989 dated 13th March, 1987 and it was addressed to the petitioner on his village address.

(3.) THE relevant factors relating to the cogent material giving rise to a thinking on the part of detaining authority that there was immediate likelihood of the release of the detenu from the custody to which he had already been subjected must be considered. In this case there did not exist any such material at the time of the passing of the impugned detention order nor such material has been produced before me. Rather material allegations do not indicate that the petitioner had ever moved for his release prior to the passing of the impugned order. There is, of course, reference in the detention order that in the event of his being released from custody he was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of State in view of his prima facie propensity towards such activities but the question is whether there was any imminent possibility of his being released or not. The second argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was not allowed to have an interview with the petitioner so as to enable him to send his representation through Superintendent Central Jail, Nabha, need not be gone into.