HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harpal Singh, petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2144 of 1988 is Attorney and real brother of detenu Jaswant Singh alias Jassa, who has challenged the preventive detention of the detenu vide order Annexure P-3 dated 28.10.1988 on the ground that the order of detention was passed by the Detaining Authority without application of mind and without its subjective satisfaction inasmuch as the factum of the detenu being already on bail was not in the knowledge of the Detaining Authority while making it; that the report made by the police against the detenu on which the grounds of detention Annexure P-4 are based was not supplied to the detenu who was thereby prevented from making an effective representation Annexure P-5 filed by the detenu with the authorities, was not considered with due expedition in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, detention of Jaswant Singh alias Jassa, detenu is rendered illegal on this score as well.

(2.) It is evident from the perusual of copy of order Annexure P-6 that the detenu was released on bail by the learned Designated Court in case F.I.R. No. 133 dated 3.7.1988 of Police Station City, Pathankot, on 16.9.1988. This fact was neither in the knowledge of the Detaining Authority nor is stated in the detention order Annexure P-3 to have been brought to its notice on 28.10.1988 when it clamped the order of detention on Jaswant Singh alias Jassa, detenu. There was thus no application of mind by the Detaining Authority to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case of the detenu and the order of detention gets vitiated on this score. Anant Sakharam Raut V/s. State of Maharashtra and another, 1987 AIR(SC) 137, and Sukhbir Singh V/s. The State of Punjab, 1988 1 RCR(Cri) 463, are both authorities for the proposition aforesaid.

(3.) Receipt Annexure P-7 dated 13.10.1988 allegedly obtained from the detenu while giving him the supporting documents clearly proves that nothing except the order of detention (both in English and Punjabi) was actually handed over to him by the Detaining Authority. The source police report on which the grounds of detention Annexure P-4 and the order of detention Annexure P-3 are based having not been supplied, the detenu was obviously prejudiced in making effective representation against his preventive detention and the order of detention Annexure P-3 gets vitiated on this score as well.