SOHAN LAL Vs. EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common prayer made in each of the above mentioned eight criminal writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is for issue of a writ of habeas corpus or other suitable order/direction directing the release of the petitioners from Sub -Jail Kaithu Simla where these petitioners are presently detained under warrants issued by respondent No. (Executive Magistrate/Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Simla) to respondent No. 2 (Superintendent, Sub -Jail, Kaithu).

(2.) These petitions suggest that the petitioners were detained for their failure to furnish interim bonds demanded from them by respondent No. 1 under Section 116 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, - hereinafter referred to as the Code. No copy of any such order passed by respondent No. 1 demanding such bonds was, however, filed with the petitions nor full particulars of the proceedings conducted before respondent No. 1 were furnished. We, therefore, summoned the original records of respondent No. 1 in each case and have perused the same in order to apprise ourselves about the factual position.

(3.) A section of the non -Gazetted employees of the State Government is reported to have launched a State -wide agitation in support of their demands. All these agitating employees are on strike these days. The petitioners in all the above mentioned writ petitions also belong to this section of the non -Gazetted employees of the State Government. They are alleged to have taken active part in the agitation They were arrested by the Simla police under Section 151 of the Code from different parts of Simla town. Some of these arrests were made on 8 -9 -1980 and others on 10 -9 -1980. Those of the petitioners who were arrested on 8 -9 -1980 were produced before the Magistrate (respondent Not l)on 9 -9 -1980 and those arrested on 10 -9 -1980 were so produced on 11 -9 -1980. While producing these petitioners before the Magistrate, the police submitted an application in each case under Section 107 of the Code alleging that these petitioners had been instigating the shopkeepers to close their shops and the bus drivers to stop their buses in support of the demands and had further extended threats that in case the shopkeepers did not close their shops, the shops would be destroyed and in case the bus drivers cared to ply their buses, the buses would be burnt. In some cases the petitioners were alleged to have coerced and instigated the other employees who had not joined the agitation, to proceed on strike. These petitioners were further alleged to have threatened such employees with dire consequences in case they did not follow their line. The police thus expressed their apprehension that in case these petitioners were allowed to remain at large they were likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and prayed that the petitioners be bound down for keeping the peace.