BAGICHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Bagicha Singh son of Phuman Singh (now confined in District Jail, Patiala) has assailed his detention under National Security Act mainly on the ground that he was in custody at the time of passing of the detention order and thus could not have resorted to any objectionable activity so as to call for preventive detention under National Security Act. The fact that petitioner was in custody at the relevant time is not disputed. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the detaining authority was conscious of that fact. Undisputedly there is no bar to passing of a detention order against a person who is already in custody but taking into consideration that said action being a preventive measure and not penal, there must be compelling reasons for so doing. What mainly weighed with the detaining authority in coming to the conclusion in favour of preventive detention, as is obvious from detention order annexure P-1, is that to its satisfaction petitioner Bagicha Singh was taking steps to get himself released from custody and there was every likelihood of his being set at liberty. It is further mentioned in the detention order that in that event he was likely to indulge in prejudicial activities. However, in sub-para (ii) of para 3 of the petition it has been specifically asserted by the petitioner that he never applied for bail and so there was absolutely no chance of his being released in the near future for which reason detention order was uncalled for. In the reply to the said assertion, the detaining authority i.e. District Magistrate, Amritsar, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 herein, has stated that it is correct that the petitioner was arrested in Case FIR No. 63/87 P.S. Valtoha and in FIR 66/87 and that there is no bar for the petitioner to approach the Court for his bail and also there is no bar for the Court to admit the accused to bail and in that event the petitioner could have indulged in the prejudicial activity. Respondent No. 2 has not specifically denied the assertion that petitioner never moved for bail in the cases in which he was in custody as an undertrial. Also, as referred to above, when it is said that the petitioner could have indulged in prejudicial activities it cannot be taken to be a case of compelling reasons to resort to such an action, apart from the fact that assertion of the petitioner that he did not take any step to get himself released from the custody, is impliedly admitted in the written statement.

(2.) IN the concluding para of the detention order the detaining authority directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, to lodge Bagicha Singh in Central Jail. Amritsar, indicating that perhaps it did not apply its mind to the facts of the case. A person who is already an inmate of Central Jail, Amritsar, cannot be possibly required to be lodged there. From this it appears that whatever has been said in the earlier part of the detention order, might have been prepared by some lower fry and the District Magistrate simply placed his signatures thereon, without knowing its contents consciously. Otherwise, such terminology might not have been used.