KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of his detention, Annexure-P/3 passed on 29-6-1988. This order refers to an earlier order dated 19-6-1988 which was revoked by a separate order on 29-6-1988. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that the petitioner has been acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order and security of State and interfering with efforts of Government in coping with terrorist and disruptive activities and on account of such activities, detention of the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980 (No. 65 of 1980) was considered to be necessary with a view to preventing the petitioner from further acting in the aforesaid manner. This impugned order further states that the President of India while being conscious of the fact that the petitioner was already in custody and had been taking steps to get himself released from the custody as per information received from the reliable sources and there was every likelihood of his being released from custody and in the event of his release from custody he was likely to resume such prejudicial activities in future and there was thus compelling necessity to pass detention order.

(2.) In the grounds of detention, Annexure-P/4, the petitioner is said to have held a secret meeting in his house on 1-6-1988 at about 9-00 p.m. in which six sikh persons participated out of which Kuldip Singh and one Jaspal Singh are said to have been identified. The meeting lasted for about 40 minutes. While Addressing the meeting, the petitioner is stated to have said that persons of his community were passing through hard times and the Government of other community wanted to finish persons of their community in toto. It is further stated that the petitioner addressed the said persons that militants of their community were fighting for the cause of persons of their community and they should be given physical and financial aid by heart and they should form a separate government, a separate Constitution and have a separate flag. The further allegation is that the petitioner stated that if the members of the other community are forced to leave their State, the State of their own community will automatically be formed. Kuldip Singh present in the said meeting is' also stated to have given a similar speech and the other participants endorsed their views. Of this meeting, ASI Gurmej Singh of Police Post Basti Bawakhal P.S. Sadar, Jalandhar received information through reliable sources. It may be mentioned here that in this respect no case was registered against the petitioner or others. Again, on 5-6-1988, Inspector Preetpal Singh, S.H.O. P.S. Sadar, Jalandhar received another information through a reliable source that the petitioner was propagating among people in the village the same ideas as he expressed in the above-said meeting on 1-6-1988. In this respect daily diary report No. 44 of the same date is said to have been recorded in Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar. It is also pertinent that no case for this incident was registered against the petitioner or others.

(3.) The next ground given in Annexure-P/4 is that on 6-6-1988, S.I. Roshan Lal of P.S. Sadar, Jalandhar, while on patrol duty received secret information that the petitioner was propagating the same ideas as mentioned above with some more additions laying stress on the said ideas. S.I. Roshan Lal, along with other police officials reached village Sangal Sohal at about 10-00 p.m. where the petitioner was propagating the said ideas among 10-12 persons near the gate of Gurdwara under the electric light and on seeing the police party, the petitioner succeeded in running away while raising slogans. Case, F.I.R. 142 of 1988 under Ss.124-A, 153-A, I.P.C. was registered in P.S. Sadar, Jalandhar on 7-6-1988 at 12-05 a.m. Statements of Balbir Singh sarpanch and Nirmal Singh Panch of the said village are said to have been recorded on 6-6-1988 corroborating the version given in the F.I.R. and the petitioner was arrested on 9-6-1988.