SUBODH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applns. on behalf of two detenus have been heard together, as they raise common questions of fact & law.

(2.) The petnr. in Cri. Misc. No. 626 of 1950 is Subodh Kumar Singh, & the petnr. in the other case, Cri. Misc. No. 627 of 1950, is Kishori Prasanna Sinha. I may briefly state the relevant facts. The two petnrs. along with several other persons, were taken in custody on 22-7-1949. It was alleged then that they had committed offences under several sections of the Penal Code & under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, the first information in the case having been lodged on 27-5-1949, & charge sheet having been submitted on 17-7-1949. While in custody the petnrs. moved for bail which was refused by the Mag. & the Ses. J. The petnrs. then moved this Ct. & on 13-10-1950, an order was passed directing the release of the petnrs. on bail to She satisfaction of the Dist. Mag. There was also an order that the hearing of the case against the petnrs. should be expedited. It is stated by the petnrs. that on 19-10-1950, the petnrs. were released on bail, but as they came out of the jail gate, they wore arrested on the strength of an order of detention passed by the Dist. Mag. of Muzaffarpur in exercise of the power vested in him under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Detention Act). On 13-11-1950, the petnrs. made their applns. to this Ct. for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, & also under Section 491, Criminal P. C. The applns. were admitted on 14-11-1950, & a rule was issued returnable within ten days. On 17-11-1950, the Dist. Mag., it is stated, served the grounds of detention on the petnrs. The two applns. were listed to be heard on 22-11-1950. On that date, the order of detention passed by the Dist. Mag. was revoked & another order of detention was made by the State Govt. being Govt. order Nos. 365 & 366 C. D. dated 22.11.1950. The grounds of detention were also served on that very day.

(3.) It is necessary now to state what these grounds are. The first para, of the grounds states that the two petnrs. are important or active members of the Communist Party of India. Then, the plan of action of the Communist Party of India is indicated, the plan being to overthrow the Govt. of India as constituted by law, through violence. Then, follow certain details of the programme of the Communist Party as stated by the General Secretary of the Party at a Congress held in Calcutta on 28-2-1948; the details include such items as gathering stocks of fire arms & ammunition, smuggling of explosives on a large scale, collection of implements for breaking jails, capturing different service associations to bring about a collapse of the administration, inciting Kishans to take forcible possession of the lands of the zamindars, inciting workers to resort to violence in the industrial area, carrying out sabotage of important industrial & other installations, etc. It is stated that secret instructions were issued to party members to offer resistance to the police at the time of arrest. After a statement of the above details of the programme of the Communist Party of India, the grounds refer to the two petnrs. individually & state the following (I am quoting from the grounds given for the detention of Kishori Prasanna Sinha, as the grounds in the case of other detenu are, more or less similar; some of the grounds being the same.)