ARUN KUMAR SINHA Vs. PROVINCE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C. The petitioner, Arun Kumar Sinha was arrested on 23 May 1948. On 7 June 1948, the Provincial Government of Bihar passed an order of detention against the petitioner under Section 2(1)(a), Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947. On 15 June, the petitioner was served with a copy of the grounds of his detention. The grounds are the following: That he is a trusted lieutenant of the communist, leader Chapal Bhattacharji of Giridih and was responsible ?or simultaneous strikes in Bermo, Giridih and Jharia collieries. Police reports indicate that he is the link between the underground communists of Bengal and those of Bihar. That he, along with other communists, was convicted under Secs.395,143 and 147, Indian Penal Code, for committing dacoity at village Banderkupi, Giridih. His activities were found to be very suspicious and the Provincial Government are satisfied that if tie is allowed to remain at large, be will undoubtedly cause serious and violent labour strikes with the object of subverting the Government in pursuance of the policy and programme recently adopted by the Communist Party of India of which he is an important member and will thereby indulge in his activities to the prejudice of the public safety and maintenance of public order. The main point which has been urged before us on behalf of the petitioner is that the grounds are vague and inadequate, and do not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 4, Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947. Learned Counsel has further contended that two of the grounds are at least palpably inaccurate. The ground which states that the petitioner was convicted under Secs.395, 143 and 147, Indian Penal Code, for committing dacoity in village Bandherkupi, Giridih, has been challenged in the petition filed by the petitioner in which it has been stated that the Provincial Government have been guilty of suppressing the truth, inasmuch as they have failed to state that the petitioner was acquitted on appeal. This statement has not been controverted on behalf of the Crown. The ground based on the conviction must, therefore, be ignored. I should like to observe also that if the Provincial Government knew that the petitioner had been acquitted on appeal, they should not have mentioned this as a ground for the detention of the petitioner. As to the allegation that the petitioner was responsible for simultaneous strikes in Bermo, Giridih and Jharia collieries, the ground does not state whether the strikes in question were ilegal or illegal strikes. It is now recognised in labour legislation and practice that labourers may iresort to strikes legally conducted, for the redress of their grievances. Merely stating that the petitioner I was responsible for strikes in Home collieries is mot a ground of such precision or adequacy as to enable the petitioner to make a representation against the order of detention. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred us to the petition filed by the petitioner from jail in which the grounds served on the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner have been incorporated. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh had stated in his grounds that the petitioner had attempted to participate in simultaneous strikes in Bermo, Giridih and Jharia collieries without success. The ground mentioned by the Deputy Commissioner is obviously in conflict with the ground mentioned by the Provincial Government; according to the Provincial Government, the petitioner was responsible for the strikes; according to the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner attempted to participate in the strikes without success. This conflict detracts considerably from the force and validity of the ground. As to the other grounds, they are clearly vague; merely stating that the petitioner is a trusted lieutenant of a communist leader or that he is the link between certain communists or that his activities are suspicious, are not grounds with such particulars as would enable the petitioner to make an effective representation against the order of detention. They are mere vague or general assertions without any particulars whatsoever. In view of the decision of the Full Bench in Nek Mohammad and Ors. V/s. The Province of Bihar cr. Misc. case No. 107 and Ors. of 1948 decided on 30 July 1948, these grounds cannot be held to be a sufficient compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

(2.) In conclusion I must refer to an affidavit which has been filed this day on behalf of the Crown. Under the rules of this Court the affidavit should have been filed earlier. Even if that affidavit were read, it does not take the case against the petitioner any further. The Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar who has made the affidavit merely states that there were certain facts which could not be disclosed. We must judge the case against the petitioner on the grounds mentioned. Judged on the basis of the grounds given, it must be held that they do not contain any particulars, and some of the grounds on the face of the record are inaccurate.

(3.) In the result, we allow the application and direct that the petitioner be forthwith released from detention. Narayan J. I agree.