MOOLSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Moolsingh and Sajjansingh under Article 226 of the constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus praying that the petitioners be set at liberty.

(2.) THE petitioners were detained under Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention act by an order of the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer, dated 8th August, 1957. The petitioners were supplied with the grounds of their detention by the Magistrate on the same date. They have now come up to this Court challenging the validity of their detention. Their main contention is that the grounds of detention furnished to them are irrelevant and too vague to enable them to make, an effective and proper representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution.

(3.) PETITIONER Moolsingh was supplied fifteen grounds for his detention and the petitioner Sajjansingh was supplied as many as sixteen. We have perused these grounds. The principal reason, which seems to have satisfied the District magistrate that the detention of the petitioners was necessary for the maintenance of public order, was that they were hand in glove with the dacoits Kishansingh, madho-singh and Vijaysingh and their gang, and they had been aiding and instigating these dacoits in the commission of heinous and violent crimes, owing to which the villagers in the neighbouring villages were terror-stricken and felt compelled to submit to the unlawful threats of these gangsters and the petitioners, and that the latter were providing them with food, shelter, clothing, ammunition in addition to news about the movements of the police. Although this appears to us to be the main case against the petitioners, the Distict magistrate has mentioned the grounds under as many as 15 paragraphs in moolsingh's case, and 16 in Sajjansingh's. Many of these so-called grounds are common to both the petitioners. These are grounds Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in both sets of grounds, and grounds Nos. 6, 10, 13, 14 and 35 of the grounds supplied to Moolsingh are identical with grounds nos. S, 12, 14, 15 and 16 respectively of the grounds supplied to Sajjansingh. We consider it unnecessary to state all these grounds in extcnso for the purposes of the present case, and shall refer to just those of them against which objections have-been taken before us.