Allowed

Sunil Singh v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2019HABC/3802/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order passed under the National Security Act, based on three FIRs of the same day, while the detenu was in custody and before he was released on bail. The court found the case one of law and order, not public order, set aside the detention order and consequential extension orders, and directed release.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order dated 15.8.2018 as approved on 23.8.2018 and all consequential extension orders set aside; petitioner to be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Sunil Singh Vs Union of India and 3… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 3802 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunil Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Karan Saxena,Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,G.A.,Jitendra Prasad Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

The present habeas corpus writ petition has been filed on behalf of corpus Sunil Singh who is said to be illegally detained by the State-respondents.

¶6

The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :

¶7

" I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the
corpus of petitioner before this Hon'ble Court and set
him at liberty from illegal detention.

¶8

II. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the detention orders dated
15.8.2018, 3.10.2018 and 9.10.2018 passed by the
respondents.

¶9

III. issue any other suitable writ petition, order or
direction, and/or to pass such other and further order
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under
the circumstances of the case.

¶10

IV. award the cost to the petition in favour of the
petitioner."

¶11

We have heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶12

The order under challenge is the detention order dated 15.8.2018 passed by the State-respondent, which was subsequently approved on 23.8.2018. The said detention order was thereafter extended vide order dated 2.11.2018 (Annexure-2) to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State (District Magistrate). This extension was made for a further period of three months.

¶13

The counsel for the petitioners submits that basis of the said detention order appears to be three incidents with regard to which three different FIRs were lodged with three different Case Crime numbers. The first being Case Crime no. 224 of 2018, the second being Case Crime no. 225 of 2018 and the third being Case Crime no. 226 of 2018. All the three FIRs have

¶14

¶15

been lodged on the same day, i.e. 31.7.2018. The first F.I.R. was lodged at about 4:25 in the evening, the second F.I.R. was lodged at about 9:800 in the night and the third F.I.R. was lodged at about 00:32 hours at midnight. The Court has been informed that subsequent to the passing of the detention order dated 15.8.2018, the petitioner has been granted bail in all the three case crime numbers. As far as Case Crime no. 224 of 2018 is concerned, the petitioner was granted bail on 28.9.2018. So far as Case Crime no. 225 of 2018 is concerned he was granted bail on 10.10.2018 and in Case Crime no. 226 of 2018 he was granted bail on 28.9.2018 but it has not been disputed that the date on which the detention order was passed by the appropriate authority that is 15.8.2018, the petitioner was in jail and the satisfaction of the detaining authority as recorded in this regard is absolutely false.

¶16

At this stage, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the order of detention (ground to detention), the illegality in the satisfaction of the detaining authority while passing the detention order.

¶17

“vki o vkids lkFkh pUnu fo'odekZ dk {ks= esa vkrad c<+ x;k gSA O;kikfj;ksa o fofHkUu dkjksckfj;ks ls tekur djkus ds fy, /ku mxkgh dj jgs gSA bu yksxks }kjk tsy esa jgrs gq, Hkh vU; ek/;eksa ls ;g dgrs gq, ng'kr QSyk;k tk jgk gS fd ftl fnu NqVdj vk;sxs rqe yksxks dh [kSj ugh gS ;fn fdlh us f[kykQ esa xokgh nh rks tku ls ekj nsaxsA

¶18

vki U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa ftyk dkjkxkj esa fnukad 01-08-18 ls fu:) gSA vkidh tekur izkFkZuk i= ek0 lh0 ts0 ,e0 U;k0 xksj[kiqj ls fnukad 03-08-2018 dks fujLr gksdj ek0 l= U;k0 xksj[kiqj esa fopkjk/khu gSA tgka ls vki tekur izkIr djus dh rS;kjh esa gSA mijksDr eqdnesa esa tekur izkIr djus gsrq vkids lg;ksfx;ks }kjk nqdkunkjks o O;olkf;;ks dks /kedk dj /ku bdV~Bk djk;k tk jgk gSA fudV Hkfo"; esa vkids tekur ij NwV tkus dh izcy laHkkouk gSA

¶19

mijksDr rF;ksa ls Li"V gS fd vki ,d [krjukd] nqLlkgfld ,oa 'kkfrj vijk/kh gSA vki dh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ka fujarj cuh gqbZ gSA ftlls yksd O;oLFkk dk vuqj{k.k dqizHkkfor gks jgk gSA vkids vkijkf/kd d`R;ks ls tuekul] O;kikjh] Nk= nqdkunkj esa Hk; ,oa vkrad O;kIr gSA tsy esa jgrs gq, Hkh vki }kjk vius lg;ksfx;ks ds ek/;e ls Hkh nqdkunkjks] O;kikfj;ksa ls viuh tekur djkus ds uke ij yxkrkj xq.Mk VSDl dh ek¡x dh tk jgh gS vkSj vius fo:) eqdnesa esa xokgh u nsus ds fy, /kedk;k tk jgk gSA vkids ng'kr ,oa vkrad ls dksbZ O;fDr lkeus vkdj eqdnek fy[kokus o vkids fo:) xokgh nsus dk lkgl ugh dj ik jgk gSA

¶20

mijksDr rF;ks ls izekf.kr gS fd vki LoHkkor% nqLlkgfld ,oa [krjukd vijk/kh gSA vkids Åij dbZ xEHkhj vijk/k ntZ gS] ogn~ vkijkf/kd bfrgkl gSA vkidh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ka fujUrj cuh gqbZ gSA ftlls yksd O;oLFkk dk vuqj{k.k dqizHkkfor gks jgk gSA vkids vkijkf/kd dR;ks ls Fkkuk jkt?kkV o mlds vkl&ikl ds yksxks esa ng'kr] Hk; o la=kl mRiUu gks x;k gSA vkidh vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ks ij fu;a=.k] fof/k dk 'kklu LFkkfir djus rFkk yksd O;oLFkk ds vuqj{k.k gsrq vkidks

¶21

fu:) djuk furkUr vko';d gSA ;fn vkidks jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr fu:) ugh fd;k x;k rks vki vius vkijkf/kd d`R;ks dks tkjh j[krs gq;s vke turk] O;kikfj;ks] nqdkunkjks] Nk=k] vfHkokodks dks vkrafdr dj yksd O;oLFkk ds vuqj{k.k esa O;o/kku mRiUu djsxsa ftlls tuthou dk lkekU; izokg fNUu&fHkUu gks tk;sxk] vr,ao yksd O;oLFkk ds vuqj{k.k ds fy, vko';d gS fd vkidks jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e 1980 ds rgr fu:) fd;k tk;A”

¶22

The primary and basic contention of the counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the satisfaction as recorded by the detaining authority while passing the detention order is not in accordance with the legal parameter as laid down by the Apex Court and which forms the basis for recording the satisfaction. There is nothing on record in the detention order which may show that the petitioner is likely to be granted bail or thereafter on being released on bail, he will indulge in activity as has been indulged by them in the present case. The petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to all the three FIRs which have been annexed to the writ petition to demonstrate and to bring on record the nature of detention as contained in the FIRs.

¶23

First F.I.R.

¶24

“(a) Occurrence of offence ¼vijk/k dh ?kVuk½%

¶25

Day ¼fnu½% eaxyokj Date from ¼fnukad ls 31/07/2018 Date To ¼fnukad rd½% 31/07/2018

¶26

Time Period ¼le; vof/k½% igj 4 Time from ¼le; ls½% 11%30 cts Time To ¼le; rd½% 11%30 cts

¶27

(b) Information received at P.S. ¼Fkkuk tgka lwpuk izkIr gqbZ½%

¶28

Date ¼fnukad½% 31/07/2018 Time ¼le;½% 16%25 cts

¶29

¶30

Entry No. ¼izfo"V la-½% 030 Date & Time ¼fnukad vkSj le;½% 31/07/2018 16%25 cts

¶31

सेवा मे ्ቚभारी िनिरी्ቌक थानिा राजघाट गोरखपुर महोदय, सिवनिय िनिवेदनि है िक मै ्ቚाथी िववेक कुमार गु्቎ा पु्ቔ ्ቦी अशोक कुमार गु्቎ा मु०- िमजाቌኋपुर थानिा- राजघाट िजला- गोरखपुर का िनिवासी हूँ ्ቚाथी िहन्दू यूवा वािहनिी का मंडल महामं्ቔी है। संगठनि एवं भाजपा के ्ቚिति हमेशा ्ቚचार ्ቚसार हेतिु पोस्ट डाला करतिा है। कल िदनिांक 30.07.2018 को हमारे मो० नि० पर 8808711222 पर मो०नि० 8052444444 से फोनि आया फोनि करनिे वाले निे अपनिा पिरचय सुनिील िसंह रािषरय अध्य्ቌ िहन्दू युवा वािहनिी भारति बतिाया तिथा मुझे संगठनि छोड़निे के िलए मजबूर िकया और कल घर पर आनिे की बाति कही और कहा िक रामभूआल कुशवाहा एवं ई०पी० के म्ቤ को भी बुला लेनिा उसके 5 िमनिट बाद मो०नि० 6387173105 से फोनि आया िजसनिे अपनिा पिरचय चंदनि

¶32

¶33

िवश्वकमाቌኋ बतिाया उन्होनिे मुझे फोनि कर माँ- बहनि की गाली देतिे हुए मुझे स्वंय तिथा मेरे पिरवार को जानि माल की धमकी देतिे हुए ललकारनिे लगा की बाहर िनिकलो सबको देख लेगे। आज पुनिः लगभग 11.30 बजे उ्ሹ चन्दनि िवश्वकमाቌኋ पु्ቔ राजू िवश्वकमाቌኋ अपनिे भाई सौरभ िवश्वकमाቌኋ पु्ቔ राजू िवश्वकमाቌኋ मो०- िमजाቌኋपुर थानिा राजघाट अपनिे 4-5 लोगो के साथ मेरे घर पर चढ़ आये माँ - बहनि की गाली देतिे हुए मुझे दौड़ा िलए मै घर मे भागा वो लोग भी घर मे गाली देतिे हुए जानि मारनिे के िनियति से घुसे मै दूसरी मंिजल पर जा कर अपनिी जॉनि बचाई लोगो के आनिे पर भीड़ बड़तिी देख कर ये लोग भाग गये। ्ቚाथቌኋनिा प्ቔ दे रहा हूँ उिचति कायቌኋवाही करनिे की कृपा करे तिथा ये लोग दबंग व्यि्ሹ है। मेरी सुर्ቌा व्यवस्था करनिे की कृपा करे। ्ቚाथी िववेक कुमार गु्቎ा (सूयाቌኋ) पु्ቔ ्ቦी अशोक कुमार गु्቎ा िदनिांक 31.07.2018

¶34

Second F.I.R.

¶35

(a) Occurrence of offence ¼vijk/k dh ?kVuk½%

¶36

Day ¼fnu½% eaxyokj Date from ¼fnukad ls 31/07/2018

¶37

Date To ¼fnukad

¶38

rd½% 31/07/2018

¶39

Time Period ¼le; vof/k½% igj 6 Time from ¼le; ls½% 17%30 cts Time To ¼le; rd½% 17%30 cts

¶40

(b) Information received at P.S. ¼Fkkuk tgka lwpuk izkIr gqbZ½%

¶41

Date ¼fnukad½% 31/07/2018 Time ¼le;½% 21%08 cts

¶42

¶43

Entry No. ¼izfo"V la-½% 039 Date & Time ¼fnukad vkSj le;½% 31/07/2018 21%08 cts

¶44

सेवा मे ्ቚधानि लेखक थानिा राजघाट जनिपद गोरखपुर आज िदनिांक 31.07.18 को मै SHO रामिवलास यादव मय हमराह का० योगेश्वर पाण्डेय का० राकेश ्ቚसाद HG रामकृपाल मय जीप सरकारी UP 53 AG 0872 चालक अशोक कुमरा िसंह के देखभाल ्ቌे्ቔ व शांिति व्यवस्था ्ቌे्ቔ मे मामूर था जिरये दूरभाष सूचनिा िमली की थानिा स्थानिीय पर पंजीकृति मु०अ०सं० 224/18 धारा 147,149,452,352,504,506,507 IPC िवरू्ቍ िवश्वकमाቌኋ आिद 3 निफर व 4-5 व्यि्ሹ निाम पतिा अ्ሺाति के िवरोध मे िहन्दू वािहनिी भारति के अध्य्ቌ सुनिील िसंह के निेतिृत्व मे सौरभ िवश्वकमाቌኋ, भूपेन ् िसंह अिभनिन्दनि ितिवारी, ्ቦी राम बाबू, कमलेश चन्दर िवश्वकमाቌኋ, सुनिील कुमार, राघवेन ् तिाप िसंह, कुलदीप िसंह आिद 35-40 निफर व्यि्ሹयों साथ निारे बाजी करतिे हुए गाली गु्቎ा देतिे हुए जानिमाल की धमकी देतिे हुए थानिे मे घुसनिे का ्ቚयास कर रहे है, इस सूचनिा को मेरे ्ቛारा जिरये दूरभाष उच्चिधकारीगण को अवगति करातिे हुए थानिे पर पहुचा तिो देखा िक उपरो्ሹ लोगो की भीड़ को संतिरी पहरी थानिा गेट पर रोक रहा है और उपरो्ሹ व्यि्ሹयों ्ቛारा संतिरी को धक्का देकर थानिे मे ्ቚवेश कर गये िजसके कारण थानिा व आस पास अफरा तिफरी का महौल पैदा हो गया। और कायቌኋ सरकार वािधति हो गया, मेरे ्ቛारा भीड़ को काफी समझाया बुझाया गया और समझानिे बुझानिे पर उ्ሹ भीड़ और उ्ቈेिजति हो गयी और धक्का मुक्की करनिे लगी मेरे ्ቛारा बतिाया गया िक आप िक भीड़ िविध िवरू्ቍ है आप लोग के इस कृत्य से थानिे के सामनिे की सड़क पर आवागमनि वािधति है, और आफरा तिफरी का माहौल हो गया है, इस पर उ्ሹ भीड़

¶45

¶46

हाथा पाही पर उतिारू हो गया शा ቴन्ति व्यवस्था िछन-िभन हो गयी है। तिब तिक उच्चािधकारी के िनिदेश पर ्ቚभारी िनिरी्ቌक ितिवारीपुर ्ቦी ्ቚमोद कुमार ि्ቔपाठी, थानिा ्ቚभारी गोरखनिाथ ्ቦी अिखलेश कुमार िसंह, थानिा ्ቚभारी कोतिवाली ्ቦी घनिश्याम ितिवारी, अपनिे-2 महराह फोसቌኋ के साथ थानिे पर आ गये। ज्योिह पांच-छ व्यि्ሹयो मौके से आवश्यक न्यूनितिम बल ्ቚयोग कर िगरफ्तिार िकया गया तिो शेष लोग मौके के निजाकति को भागतिे हुए हट बढ़ गये। िगरफ्तिार व्यि्ሹयों का निाम पतिा पूछा गया तिो एक निे अपनिा निाम- सुनिील िसंह S/O स्व० रघुनिाथ िसंह R/O कुडाघाट PS कैण्ट जनिपद गोरखपुर (2) भूपेन ् िसंह पु्ቔ ्቗ुव ्ቚतिाप िसंह R/O आवास िवकास कालोनिी कुडाघाट PS कैन्ट गोरखपुर (3) अिभनिन्दनि ितिवारी S/O भूपनिाथ ितिवारी R/O बरौली PS महुली जनिपद संतिकबीर निगर (4) ्ቦी राम बाबू S/O िशवकुमार R/O िमजाቌኋपुर PS राजघाट जनिपद गोरखपुर (5) कमलेश S/O स्व० हिरओम R/O िमजाቌኋपुर PS राजघाट जनिपदगोरखपुर (6) चन्दनि िवश्वकमाቌኋ S/O राजू िवश्वकमाቌኋ R/O िमजाቌኋपुर PS राजघाट जनिपद गोरखपुर बतिाये तिथा बतिाये िक अजीति अ्ቇहिर S/O मनिू अ्ቇहिर R/O िमजाቌኋपुर घासीकटरा रोड PS राजघाट जनिपद गोरखपुर (2) मक्खनि ्ቦीवास्तिव निाम पतिा अ्ሺाति (3) सुनिील कुमार S/O सत्यनिरायनि R/O आवास िवकास कालोनिी PS शाहपुर जनिपद गोरखपुर (4) राघवेन ् िसंह S/O निरेन ् िसंह आवास िवकास कालोनिी म०नि० 326 कुडाघाट PS कैण्ट जनिपद गोरखपुर। (5) कुलदीप S/O हिरओम कश्यप R/O फलमण्डी PS खोरावार गोरखपुर व 35-40 व्यि्ሹ मौके से भाग गये।

¶47

Third F.I.R.

¶48

(a) Occurrence of offence ¼vijk/k dh ?kVuk½%

¶49

Day ¼fnu½% eaxyokj Date from ¼fnukad ls 31/07/2018 Date To ¼fnukad rd½% 31/07/2018

¶50

Time Period ¼le; vof/k½% igj 1 Time from ¼le; ls½% 00%00 cts Time To ¼le; rd½% 00%00 cts

¶51

(b) Information received at P.S. ¼Fkkuk tgka lwpuk izkIr gqbZ½%

¶52

Date ¼fnukad½% 01/08/2018 Time ¼le;½% 00%32 cts

¶53

¶54

Entry No. ¼izfo"V la-½% 002 Date & Time ¼fnukad vkSj le;½% 01/08/2018 00%32 cts

¶55

सेवा मे ्ቦ ीमानि थानिा ्ቚभारी महोदय राजघाट गोरखपुर महोदय, िनिवेदनि है िक हम ्ቚाथी रामभुआल कुशवाहा पु्ቔ ्ቦी शंकर लाल कुशवाहा िनिवासी टरान्सपोटቌኋ निगर थानिा राजघाट िजला गोरखपुर का िनिवासी हूँ। आज िदनिांक 31.07.18 िदनि मे श्याम काल अपनिे निीजी कायቌኋ हेतिु स्कािपቌኋयो गाड़ी निं० UP 53 BK-1701 से साहबगंज से िमजाቌኋपुर से जा रहा था िक सुनिील िसंह, चन्दनि िवश्वकमाቌኋ पु्ቔ राजू िवश्वकमाቌኋ कमलेश कश्यप व राम बाबू गु्቎ा के आपरािधक सािजस पर सौरभ िवश्वकमाቌኋ पु्ቔ राजू िवश्वकमाቌኋ िनिवासी िमजाቌኋपुर थानिा राजघाट िजला गोरखपुर मे अपनिे सािथयों के साथ लोहे की राड, लाठी, ईट, पत्थर व अन्य घातिक िहिथयार से लैस होकर घेर

¶56

¶57

िलए। सौरभ िवश्वकमाቌኋ के ललकारनिे पर ्ቚाथी को जानि से मारनिे की िनियति से दीपू कसौधनि पु्ቔ अ्ሺाति, शुभम पु्ቔ ्ቚमोद गु्቎ा िनिवासी िमजाቌኋपुर गुड़मण्डी, अजीति अ्ቇहिर पु्ቔ मनू लाल िनिवासी िमजाቌኋपुर घासीकटरा, मोिहति गु्቎ा अ्ሺाति, आकाश पु्ቔ अ्ሺाति िनिवासी िमजाቌኋपुर थानिा राजघाट, गोरखपुर, मक्खनि ्ቦीवास्तिव पु्ቔ अ्ሺाति, सुनिील कुमार पु्ቔ सत्यनिारायण िनिवासी आवास िवकास कालोनिी थानिा शाहपुर जनिपद गोरखपुर, राघवेन ् ्ቚतिाप िसंह पु्ቔ निरेन्दर िसंह िनिवासी आवास िवकास कालोनिी कुडाघाट थानिा कैन्ट जनिपद गोरखपुर, कुलदीप पु्ቔ हिरओम कश्यप िनिवासी फलमण्डी थानिा खोरावार जनिपद गोरखपुर सिहति 15-20 लोग लोहे के राड, लाठी, ईट, पत्थर चलानिे लगे िजससे ्ቚाथी एवं ्ቚाथी के साथ गाड़ी मे बैठे ्ቚभाशंकर ि्ቔपाठी, अशोक गु्቎ा व िववेक सूयाቌኋ व राम िसंह कनौिजया सभी लोगो को काफी चोटे आयी है तिथा हम ्ቚाथी के गाड़ी का शीशा टूट गया व गाड़ी ्ቌिति ्ቇस्ति हो गयी। सिजसनि हुए इस हमले से हम सभी सहम गये तिथा जानि बचाकर भागे। उपरो्ሹ लोग अपरािधक ्ቚवृिति के व्यि्ሹ है जो आये िदनि तिरह तिरह की अपरािधक घटनिाए करतिे रहतिे है। घटनिा के बाद घटनिा के वावति ्ቦी मानि को सूचनिा दे रहा हूँ। अतिः आप ्ቦीमानि से िनिवेदनि है िक इस ्ቚकरण का मुकदमा दजቌኋ कर मु ቴल्जमानिो के िखलाफ उिचति कायቌኋवाही कर द ቴण्डति करनिे की कृपा करे। िदनिांक 31.7.18 ्ቚाथी ह० रामभुआल कुशवाहा, रामभुआल कुशवाहा पु्ቔ ्ቦी शंकर लाल कुशवाहा मु० टरान्सपोटቌኋ निगर थानिा राजघाट, गोरखपुर Mob N 9450231616 लेखक प० हृदय निारायण एडवोकेट 31.07.18”

¶58

The counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the contention that all the three FIRs have been lodged on the same date on account of previous enmity. He further submits that he was arrested on 31.7.2018 at about 5:30 in the evening and thus the second F.I.R. has been lodged subsequently after his arrest and thus it has been contended that both the FIRs have been lodged only for the purpose of building the case against him. The basic contention of the counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that even if the prosecution case is believed to be true as stated in all the FIRs, in all three cases he has been granted bail and that even otherwise satisfaction has not been recorded and basically it is a law and order situation and does not give rise to any dispute of public order which might have induced the detaining authority to resort to the National Security Act against the petitioner. Only ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order is that the present case is one of law and order and not public order and the detention of the petitioner under the National Security Act is per se illegal.

¶59

The contention of counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that as per the situation which could be easily handled by the criminal system of the country and the invocation of N.S.A. was not required. The detaining

¶60

¶61

authority has not recorded his satisfaction as to how and under what circumstances it be said the criminal system of the country is not capable to deal with the situation and it has been thus contended that the order of detention which has been passed under the present situation is punitive in nature and not preventive in nature.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that it is not on the record that after the incident dated 31.7.2018 some public demonstration has taken place and there was occasion to pass the detention order dated 18.8.2018 when the incident itself was of 31.7.2018 and the petitioner was in jail with no scope of his release on bail on that particular date.

¶63

Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India has filed a detailed counter affidavit on behalf of Union of India bringing on record the manner in which the representation of the petitioner has been dealt with.

¶64

However, keeping in view the basic contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, the same need not to be gone into.

¶65

Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the writ petition with the contention that the conduct of the petitioner has given rise to public order situation and petitioner has criminal history of seventeen cases.

¶66

Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that three of the cases are the present case and after his being detained in jail he has been further implicated in four other criminal cases and this constitutes the criminal history of the petitioner.

¶67

It has been very vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order has not recorded its satisfaction as required to have been recorded under the provisions of Section 3(2) of National Security Act. Reliance has been placed in this regard on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Rekha vs State Of Tamilnadu through Secretary to Government, reported in AIR 2011 (5) SCC 244, wherein the Apex Court has held that “if recourse to criminal proceedings would be sufficient to deal with alleged prejudicial activities, then the detention order would be illegal, even if a person is liable to be tried, or is actually being so tried,

¶68

¶69

for a criminal offence, but the ordinary criminal law (IPC or the penal statutes) will not able to deal with this situation, then and only then, the preventive detention law be taken recourse to.”

¶70

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon two Division Bench Judgements of this Court rendered in the case of Sudhir vs. Union of India & 3 others passed in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 3181 of 2018 and Istekaar & Another vs. Union of India & 5 others passed in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 3094 of 2018.

¶71

Much has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the present is a case of only simple “law and order” and will not fall within the category of “public order”. The questions of “law and order” and “public order” have been engaging the attention of the Court since time immemorial. A perusal of relevant case law in this regard would show that “public order” indicates something more than “law and order”. The breach of public order involves a degree of disturbance and it affects upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to breach of law and order and not a public order. The difference between two concepts is in only one degree. An act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the public order and an act which might be prejudicial to public order may not affect the security of the State. Public order is synonymous with public safety and tranquillity and it is the absence of any disorder involving breaches of local significance in contradiction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife, war, affecting the security of the State.

¶72

In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar and others, 1966 AIR 740, it has been held by the Apex Court that any contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. It was observed that offences against “law and order”, “public order” and “security of the State” are demarcated on the basis of the gravity. It is the degree of disturbance and its affect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to breach of law and order though in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had stated that by committing this offence in public, the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in a

¶73

¶74

manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which affected the even tempo of life of the community, but in fact it was a solitary case of robbery, it was held that mere citation of these words in the order of detention is more in the nature of a ritual rather than with any significance to the content of the matter. Thus a solitary instance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds of detention is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

¶75

The determining test in all such cases is “the act leads to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of society undisturbed.” The expression “law and order”, “public order” and “security of the State” are distinct concepts though always not separate. Every public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder but every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. For example, when two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but disorder is a broad spectrum which includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most serious and cataclysmic happenings. (Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar and others, AIR 1966 SC 740). In Mrs. T. Devaki vs Government Of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1086, the Apex Court has held that single incident of murderous assault on the Minister in a public place was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Any disorderly behavior of a person in the public or commission of a criminal offence is bound to some extent affect the peace prevailing in the locality and it may also affect law and order problem but the same need not affect maintenance of public order. The incident did not and could not affect public peace and tranquility nor it had potential to create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality. The solitary incident as alleged in the ground of detention is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

¶76

¶77

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that this is a solitary case and thus, there was no occasion for the detaining authority to have passed the preventive detention order.

¶78

It has been contended that in the present case it has not been shown that the detaining authority that the detaining authority has applied its mind to the aforesaid fact as to how and under what circumstances can it be presumed that the criminal law machinery of the State by itself is not sufficient to deal with the situation at hand.

¶79

Reference may also be made to a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ramveer Jatav vs State Of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 63, wherein the Apex Court has observed that it is difficult to infer from the solitary ground set out in the grounds of detention that the act alleged to have been committed by the petitioner would have disturbed public order as distinct from law and order or that one single act committed by the petitioner was of such a character that it could reasonably be inferred by the detaining authority that if not detained, he would be likely to indulge in such activity in future.

¶80

In the aforesaid case, an incident had taken place in broad day light incident in which some persons had indulged in an act of firing and killing the deceased near the clinic.

¶81

Reliance has also been placed on another judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Subhash Bhandari vs District Magistrate Lucknow, reported in AIR 1987 (4) SCC 685.

¶82

We have perused the said criminal history which has been explained by learned counsel for the petitioner in supplementary affidavit dated 3.1.2019. From the perusal of the record it appears that most of the cases pertain to the year 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 and thus it has been contended that the detention order has no nexus to the said history.

¶83

Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and consistent legal position as enumerated above, we set aside the impugned detention order dated 15.8.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, respondent no. 3 as approved by the State Government on 23.8.2018 and all consequential orders by means of which the period of detention was extended for a further period of three months.

¶84

The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner, if not wanted in any other

¶85

¶86

case, shall be set at liberty forthwith in accordance with law after due communication of this order to the authorities concerned, once again in accordance with law.

¶87

Order Date :- 7.1.2019 Faridul

Sunil Singh v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Singh v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashiq and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhupesh @ Sonu and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Fatima Bi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ramvilas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Swami Shree Yogi Satyam and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu @ Krishna and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others