BIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioner who has been detained in pursuance of an order under Section 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimea Act, 1981 issued by the District Magistrate, Singbhum at Chaibasa. History wise the petitioner was involved in a case under Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in 1970. He was also accused in Sonari P.S. Case No. 59, dated 7.9.1982, under Sections 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The ground for the detention is that on 8.8.1987 at about 11.45 A.M. he shot Nirmal Mahto, a Tribal leader The killing took place near the gate of Chamary Guest House of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. at Jamshedpur The shooting took place when the detenue along with M.L.As. Suraj Mandal and Gyan Ranjan and several others were coming out to attend the shradh of the mother of one Avtar Singh Tar. Nirmal Mahto, President (If Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, was rushed to Tata Main Hospital but he succumed to the injury soon after reaching the hospital. The murder of Nirmal Mahto created tremendous upheaval at Jamshedpur The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha of which the deceased was the President, and which claims to agitate for creation of separate Jharkhand State, took it as an affront to the political and tribal aspirations. The upheaval resulted in several occurrences of assault and killing namely (i) Gamharia P.S. case no. 38/87 dated 8.8.1987, under Sections 147, 148, 149,330,323,427 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, (ii) Adityapur P.S. Case no. 150/87 dated 11.8.1987, under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, (iii) Gambharia P.S. Case No. 39/87, dated 118.1987, under Sections 301/201 of the Indian Penal Code, (iv) Adityapur P.S. Case No. 348/87 dated 8.8.1987 under Sections 147, 148,149, 307, 188 of the Indian Penal Code and (v) Adityapur P.S. Case no. 15 1/87 under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. There can be no manner of doubt that the action of detenu-petitioner disturbed the public order of Jamshedpur completely out of gear. The situation wall brought under control by rushing, large additional police force at Jamshedpur. The authority had credible materials in its possession to show that the tribal population on the one band were agitated about the murder of Nirmal Mahto and the detenu on the other hand was sending out threats from jail to the witnesses who would depose against him.

(3.) In my view, there can be riot the least doubt that public order was disturbed by the act of the petitioner in killing Nirmal Mahto. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner did not contend that the public order was not disturbed.