AMARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amarjeet Singh son of Manjeet Inder Singh resident of Bucho Mandi District Bathinda, now detained in Central Jail, Nabha, was ordered to be detained under National Security Act, vide detention order dated 1.9.1988, Annexure P-1. Annexure P-2 are the grounds of detention. His said detention has been assailed by the petitioner through criminal writ petition under discussion.

(2.) It is common case of the parties, as is clear from the petition and the return filed on behalf of the State Government i.e. respondent No. 1, that petitioner was arrested on 26.2.1988 in a regular criminal case and was already confined in jail, that originally detention order under National Security Act was passed by District Magistrate, Bathinda, on 24.8.1988 which was later revoked by the State Government on 1.9.1988 and the impugned detention order was passed on the same day under the signatures of Under Secretary, Home, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh. It is also not disputed that the present order dated 1.9.1988 was passed by the State Government on the same grounds of detention. It is well settled by now that detention order as a preventive measure can be passed against a person who is already in custody but the detaining authority should be conscious at the time of making the order with regard to question of detention and also there should be compelling reasons for so doing. It being a preventive measure and not penal one a detention order is passed with a view to prevent future action. An Annexure P-1 also it has been specifically mentioned that this order was made with a view to preventing the petitioner from further acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of State. No one who is already in custody can possibly so act unless the custody was likely to end in near future. Petitioner has assailed his detention amongst others mainly for the reason that he could not have possibly so acted being already in jail, particularly when there was no occasion of his release in the near future.

(3.) If we refer to detention order Annexure P-1, which alone is under assail in instant writ petition, it nowhere indicates if the detaining authority was conscious of the fact that petitioner Amarjeet Singh was in judicial custody in case FIR No. 64 dated 23.6.1987 of Police Station, Sangrur as is now admitted in sub-para (1) of Para 3 of the return. On the other hand, it is simply referred to therein that he had been directed to be detained under National Security Act, 1980 , vide order dated 24.8.1988 and was lodged in the Central/District Jail, Bathinda, meaning thereby that his lodging in the jail co-related to the earlier detention order and not a regular criminal case so far as the knowledge of the detaining authority went.