Bhagauti Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Virendra Saran, J.—Bhagauti Singh has preferred this habeas corpus writ petition challenging his continued detention on the basis of the order dated 2.6.1998 of the District Magistrate, Raebareli u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act. A.Cr.R. 157

The detention of the Petitioner is based on a solitary incident of 21.5.98 at 7.30 p.m. It is alleged that the Petitioner along with some of his companions variously armed reached Sadar Tehsil, Raebareli. where one Hamid Ali was confined in execution of a recovery certificate of Rs. one lac ninety-one thousand and odd. At that time Naib-Tehsildar Rajaram Gautam, Lekhpal, Collection Amin and about 20-25 peoples were present. They caught hold of Naib-Tehsildar and abused him and also gave him beating by slaps and fists and they wanted to break-open the lock-up to rescue Hamid Ali. Persons present there tried to save Naib-Tehsildar whereupon the companions of the Petitioner fired twice or thrice with the result that the persons present in the Tehsil started running away for their lives. The Naib-Tehsildar also ran to conceal himself. There was also commotion in the residential colony of the Tehsil and the inmates closed their doors. Meanwhile, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Circle Officer-Sadar with police force reached there. On their arrival the Petitioner and his companions made good their escape. Sri Raja Ram Gautam lodged an F.I.R. on the basis of which a case was registered as Crime No. 584 of 1998 u/s 147/148/149/504/332/353/307. I.P.C. Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3(1)(x) SC & ST Act. The grounds of detention further state that due to the incident there was possibility that the Petitioner may again act in similar manner to protect his companions and other influential persons who had not cleared their dues and on account of the incident work of realisation had been effected and hence in order to prevent the Petitioner from indulging in such activities which may lead to disturbance of public order, the impugned detention order was necessary.

We have heard Sri Raza Zaheer. learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned Government Advocate and Smt. Amita Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Union of India and have perused the material placed on the record of the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made two submissions. First, that the incident in question was purely a matter of law and order, the F.I.R. has already been lodged under the various provisions of the Penal Code, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and SC & ST Act and the Petitioner will be prosecuted and punished, if the offence is proved against him in a court of law. However, it is not a case where there was any chance of repetition of similar incident by the Petitioner which may go to disturb public order. The second submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there has been unexplained delay in the disposal of Petitioner''s representation.

Adverting to the first submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner there can be no doubt that the Act of the Petitioner was hazardous in nature but at the same time it was solitary Act on the part of the Petitioner. F.I.R. has already been lodged under the various provisions of the Penal Code, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and SC & ST and the Petitioner can be suitably punished in case he is found guilty. In our opinion his case can be suitably dealt with according to the ordinary law without resorting to preventive detention. It may be observed that every offence has to some extent its reach on public order. However, the Court must be cautious and see that every case of breach of law and order may not be magnified into a case of public order for invoking the provisions of preventive detention. In the present case the incident had happened in the precincts of Tehsil where only few persons employed in Tehsil (About 25 or slightly more) were present. The crime was not committed in full view of the public in general and did not have the effect of disturbing the even tempo of life. It is a question of fact in each case where the incident is one which involves law and order or public order. In the circumstances of the present case we are of the view that the incident did not have its reach to the effect that there would have been disturbance of public order and the act of the Petitioner can be very well be met by his conviction and sentence under the ordinary law, in case the offence is proved against him and we are of the opinion that it is not a case for invoking the provisions of preventive'' detention against the Petitioner.

In view of our conclusion that it is not a case where the detention of the Petitioner was necessary to prevent him from disturbing the public order, it is not necessary to dwell upon the second submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Accordingly, this he be as corpus petition is allowed. The continued detention of the Petitioner on the basis of the order dated 31.5.98 of the District Magistrate. Raebareli u/s 3(1) of the National Security Act is held to be bad in law. The Petitioner is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.