MOHAMMAD IQBAL Vs. DISTT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- Petitioner submits that he was arrested in the month of Oct. 1994, in connection with F.I.R. No. 41/93 registered under Section 3/4 TADA, by Police Station Basantgarh. He further submits that he was interrogated by different police agencies. He moved a bail application before the designated Court and he was bailed out by the Court on 1-5-1995. He enjoyed the fruits of bail after being set at liberty. Then on 22-8-1995 he was summoned by the Police and was told that a challan in connection with F.I.R. No. 41/93 was to be presented against him before the designated Court and his presence is required before the Presiding Officer on 23-8-1995. He presented himself before the Presiding Officer on 23-8-1995 after being taken by the police in a police vehicle. Copy of challan was also given to him but when he left the Court, he was arrested. He protested and submitted that he was already on bail, but he was informed that he is being arrested under Public Safety Act.

(2.) He submits that no order of detention was ever served upon him, however, during his detention he was given the grounds of detention. He further submits that except the grounds of detention, no other material was ever supplied to him. He has challenged the order of detention and the grounds, on the ground that the allegations levelled against him are false. He further submits that since he was not given the order of detention, he does not know when the order was passed. He further submits that even the copy of the F.I.R. mentioned in the grounds of detention was not given to him. He further submits that after a period of four months, when he was enjoying the bail, he had not done anything prejudicial to law, therefore, there was no necessity for the respondents to detain him.

(3.) In their counter affidavit, the District Magistrate has submitted that the petitioner was arrested in pursuance to his order dated 28th March, 1995, being order No. DM-UDH/ PSA-95/5 dated 28-3-1995, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. It has been admitted that the petitioner was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 41/ 93 and released on bail on l-5-1995. The order of detention was passed on 28th March, 1995, that means when the order of detention was passed the petitioner was in custody. Why was the petitioner allowed to go on bail and not detained immediately when he was bailed out ? Why was he left to enjoy the fruits of bail for three months, has not been explained. The grounds of detention which has been supplied to the petitioner refer to allegations which pertain to the period before his arrest in Oct. 1994, therefore, after the petitioner had been allowed to go on bail on 1-5-1995 and the order of detention was not executed, which had been passed in March, 1995, the least required of the District Magistrate was that he would have applied his mind afresh to the case of the petitioner to see whether there was any need of detaining the petitioner in view of his conduct during the period he was on bail.