BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not disputed that petitioner Baldev Singh was already lodged in jail when the impugned detention order under National Security Act (annexure P-1) was passed on 10.12.1987. Rather, it is admitted in the detention order itself that the petitioner was then in custody in Central Jail, Amritsar. It is not spelt out in the order or even in the grounds on which the detention order was based what steps were being taken by the petitioner to get himself released from the custody so as to conclude that there was even likelihood of this being set at liberty. As against this, the petitioner has stated in the petition that he never applied for bail and there was no chance of his getting out of the jail, which fact has not been specifically controverted in the written statement. When the petitioner was in jail at the time of making of the detention order, he could not possibly have acted in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, so as to provide an occasion for preventive order. Placed in such a situation, the action taken becomes punitive rather than preventive. It is settled principle of law that order of detention cannot be a posed for the purpose of circumventing the expected bail order. Also there is nothing on the record to indicate any credible information or cogent reasons apparent on the record that the detenu if enlarged on bail would act prejudicially to the interest of public order. A bald statement that the person would repeat his criminal activity has never been considered to be enough. The case is covered by Ramesh Yadav V/s. District Magistrate Etah and others, 1986 AIR(SC) 315and Smt. Shashi Aggarwal V/s. State of U.P. and others, 1988 AIR(SC) 596. In the instant case the position is even worse as it is nowhere alleged that the petitioner had move for his release on bail. The order of detention, therefore, cannot be treated to be proper or legal.

(2.) In the result, I quash the order of detention dated 10.12.1987 (annexure P-1). There is no statement in the petition or subsequent thereto that the detenu was released on bail in the various cases in which he admittedly is under trial; there will, therefore, be no order for his release.