KESHRI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of his son Gajraj Singh under National Security Act. Gajraj Singh was detained on 22. 5,1986 under the orders of the District Magistrate, Kota issued under S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act" ). His detention was confirmed by the Government vide Annexure II on June 2, 1986 and the grounds of detention were supplied by the District Magistrate, Kota on June 4, 1986. He filed representation to the Government which was rejected by the Government on July 8, 1986 and his detention was also confirmed by the Advisory Board which was communicated to him by Home Secretary vide letter dated July 19, 1986. It is thereafter that this habeas corpus petition was filed by the father of the detenu praying that Annexures I to IV be quashed and the detenu be released forthwith. Notice of this petition was given to the State and reply was filed on its behalf wherein the detention was sought to be justified.

(2.) THE main ground for challenging the detention is that reason assigned for detention are too remote to justify the detention as they are not proximate to the order of detention. It is submitted that sole ground of detention is institution of several criminal cases in previous years and virtually gives out a list of cases which have been instituted against the detenu. According to the list the detaining authority has considered the cases w. e. f. year 1975 till 1986 and had also taken into consideration the proceedings under Chapter VIII of Cr. P. C. i. e. , regarding security for keeping peace. It is submitted that in most of Criminal cases mentioned therein either the detenu had been acquitted or the final reports given. Some of the cases had been pending trial for long but in recent years, i. e. , from 1983 to 1986 there had not been such serious reports against the detenu which could have warranted his detention under the Act. It is submitted that on the other hand there is considerable improvement in the conduct of the detenu and he has been showing marked improvement. It is submitted that there is no case instituted against him in the year 1983. In the year 1984 there has been one case under the Rajasthan Excise Act and the other under S. 4/25 of the Arms Act. In 1985 there was only one case under Rajasthan Excise Act. In this case also charge sheet has not been submitted. In 1986 there had been a report for a non-cognizable offence and till date there is no case instituted against the detenu in respect of this report. Besides proceedings under the Gunda Act there had been 11 proceedings under S. 107 Cr. P. C. from year 1978 till 1983, but all of them have been dropped. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner should be ordered to be released forthwith. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Kamalakar Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1) and Anant Shakharam Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra (2)

(3.) PENDENCY of old criminal cases alone cannot be considered as ground for detaining the accused under the National Security Act coupled with the reason when State has failed to furnish proper information required by this Court. In Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. The State of M. P. (supra) their Lordships have held as under: "it is not open to the Detaining Authority to pick up an old and sale incident and hold it as the basis of an order of detention under S. 3 (2) of the Act Now there is no provision in the National Security Act, similar to S. 5a of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, which says that where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under sub-S. (1) of S. 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly (a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely, because one or some of the grounds is or are vague, non-existent, non-relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such persons or invalid for any other reason, and it is not therefore, possible to hold that Che Government or officer making such order would have been satisfied as provided in sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention and (b) the Government or officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said sub-Section (1) after being satisfied as provided in that sub-section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds. Therefore, in the present case it cannot be postulated what view would have been taken by the Detaining Authority about the need to detain the petitioner under $. 3 (2) if he had not taken into account the stale and not proximate grounds into consideration in arriving at the subjective satisfaction. The order of detention in the instant case under S. 3 (2) was held unsustainable as some of the grounds for detention were found too remote and not proximate 1o the order of detention viz, they related to incidents which were more than 5 and 2 years prior to the date of order of detention".