PANCHHI BAI Vs. STATE & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner's son, Shiva (the detenu) has been detained under the order dated 24th Nov., 1994, passed by the District Magistrate, Kota (the respondent No. 2) under sub-section (2) of Sec. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 ("the Act"). The said order had been approved by the State of Rajasthan (the respondent No. 1) on 30th Nov., 1994 and was confirmed by the Advisory Board, after hearing the detenu, on 10th January, 1995. The order was thereafter confirmed by the State Government on 24th Jan., 1995. The grounds, on which, the detention-order has been passed, are mentioned in Annexure-R. 1, which were furnished to the detenu, alongwith the order of detention. These grounds give the details of the various cases, in which, the detenu has been involved since June, 1991. The particulars of the said cases have been mentioned in para-5 of the petition also. Except cases at Sr. No. 4 and 6, which relate to the maintenance of public peace and had been registered under the preventive provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the other cases relate to committing of extortion, robbery, causing simple and grievous hurt, besides some cases of attempt to commit murder, and a case of committing rape by entering the house of a lady. Most of these cases, according to the grounds (Annex. R/1), have been committed in the open market and during the broad daylight, causing fear in the minds of the public at large, resulting into closure of the markets and according to the grounds, furnished to the detenu, the witnesses are scared to come forward to depose against the detenu.

(3.) It is true that an order of detention can be passed only when the detaining authority is satisfied that it is necessary to do so'with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and cannot be passed if the case is one of law and order, which has to be dealt with in accordance with the ordinary law of land. According to the grounds of detention (Annex. R/1), the petitioner has been committing serious offences of extortion, robbery, attempt of murder, house-trespass, rape and most of the offences were committed in the open market by him and his gangman in broad daylight, with the result that the shop-owners of the market closed their shops out of fear and even the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the detenu. The record shows that the detenue has been involved in three such cases in the year 1991, in four such cases in the 1993 and in seven such cases in the year 1994. If a person, alongwith his associates, commits serious offences in the open market and in broad daylight, it is natural for the residents of the area and for the persons present in the market, to feel scared, for the shopkeepers, to close their shops and to go home, and for the witnesses, not to come forward and give statements. Such cases cannot be said to be involving an incident of law and order, but they do involve the question of disturbance of public-order. The material above-said was sufficient for the respondent No. 2 for being satisfied that it was necessary to detain the detenu with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public-order, and in these circumstances the order, approving and confirming the same, passed the respondent No. 1, is also not open to challenge.