584 A BIRU MAHATO f . v. '""" . DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DHANBAD. B October 15, · 1982 [D.A. DESAI AND R: B. MISRA, JJ.) NatioMI Security Act, 1980, Section 3(2) Scope of-Prevelltive detention of the detenu whose liberty has otherwise already been prevented by keeping in ]ail is C.. impermissible under the N.S. Act-Non•awareness of the detaining. authority about the detenu's detention in jail would vitiate the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind-Affidavit should be that of'the detaining authority who had the su~jective satisfaction of the detention. ' Detenu Biru Mahato was arrested on January 13, 1982' on the allegation that he was involved in two incidents which occurred, first at S p.m. and the D second at 5:30p.m. on January 12, 1982. In the first occurrence detenu and his associates were alleged to have committed offences under sections 341, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, as per the F.LR. 25(1)/82 at Bagmara Police Station. In the second case, F.I R. 24{1)/82 registered at the same police station, they were said to have committed offences under sections 307 and 323 I.P.C. After his arrest the detenu was confined :. in prison. In respect of the first occurrence . bail -application was accepted, but in respect E of the second occurrence the bail application was rejected by the District & Session Judge, Dhanbad on February S, 1982, on the ground that in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (2) read with sub section (3) of Section 3 of the. National Security Act, 1980, the detenu is detainec:l by the order of the District - Magistrate so as to prevent him from acting in any _manner prejudical to the maintenance of public order and the bail application bas become infructuous, On February 1o, 1982, grounds of detention were served on the detenu in jail where he was already detained. The grounds of detention referred to the two incidents occurred on January 12, 1982. The detenu made a representation on February IS, 1982 which was rejected by the State Government on Februay 16, 1982. The case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board and after -receipt of its report the State Goverii!llent confirmed the·order of detention. . -.....-/ Detenu preferred a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court G at Patna which was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the appeal by special ieave and lhe writ petition. Allowing the appeal and the petition, the Court H taken HELD the pCTSOn : 1.1 sought A preventive action postulates tO be prevented may indulge into that if an preventive step is activity prejudicial not .. to the maintenance of public order. In other words, unlesa the activity is interdicted by a preventive detention order the activity which is being indulged
