Brojeswar Pandey vs State of West Bengal

R.N. Dutt, J.—This is an application u/s 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus against the detention of Utpal Kumar Pandey, alias Utpal Pandey, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.

It appears that the detenu Utpal Kumar Panday is being detained without trial on the basis of a detention order made by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, on April 7, 1969, u/s 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.

From the order of detention we find that the detenu is being detained with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu was served with the grounds for his detention. The grounds, two in number, are as follows:

(i) That on March 31, 1969, at about 3.30 p.m. you being armed with bombs along with Tapan Kumar Upadhya of 1/1A Goabagan Street, Calcutta, Debendra Nath Jha of 3/A Goabagan Street, Biplab Mukherjee of 30 Garanhata Street and others, all armed with bombs, soda-water bottles and brickbats created a great disturbance on Jatindra Mohan Avenue in front of premises No. 2 when you indiscriminately hurled bombs and your above-named associates indiscriminately hurled bombs, soda-water bottles and brickbats aiming at the local people endangering their lives and thereby creating panic and disorder in the locality.

(ii) That on April 4, 1969, at about 9-30 p.m. you being armed with bombs along with Narayan Chandra Mitra of 12 Peari Mohan Sur Lane, Hiran Kumar Pandey of 1 /1A Goabagan Street, Ganesh Singh of 1 Ramesh Dutta Street, Panchu Gopal Das of 39/2 Ram Dulal Sarkar Street and others all armed with bombs and soda-water bottles created a great disturbance on Beadon Street near its crossing with Jatindra Mohan Avenue when you indiscriminately hurled bombs and your above-named associates indiscriminately hurled bombs and soda-water bottles towards the local people endangering their lives and thereby caused a panic and disorder in the locality.

Mr. Ghosh first contends that there was no existence of the grounds when the detention order was made. The detention order is dated April 7, 1969. The grounds are dated April 8, 1969. What Mr. Ghosh submits is that since the grounds were dated April 8, 1969, the Commissioner of Police could not have taken them into consideration when he made the order on April 7, 1969. This argument appears to be misconceived. The detaining authority is to be satisfied about the necessity to detain the detenu on the basis of materials placed before him, but it is not necessary that at that stage the materials should be drafted in the form of grounds. The detenu is to be furnished with the grounds within five days of his detention. It is just possible that the grounds were drafted after the Commissioner of Police was satisfied about the necessity to detain the detenu on the basis of materials placed before him and even after the detention order was made and the detenu'' was taken into custody. This contention of Mr. Ghosh, therefore, fails.

Mr. Ghosh''s real contention is that the grounds do not relate to public order. We have set forth the grounds. We have seen that both the grounds are more or less of the same nature involving two incidents, one on March 31, 1969, and the other on April 4, 1969. It is alleged that the detenu armed with bombs along with some of his associates, who were also armed with bombs, soda-water bottles and brickbats, created a great disturbance on March 31, 1969, on Jatindra Mohan Avenue when bombs, soda-water bottles and brickbats were indiscriminately hurled, aiming at the local people, endangering their lives and thereby creating panic and disorder in the locality and again on April 4, 1969, on Beadon Street, near the crossing of Jatindra Mohan Avenue, when bombs, soda-water bottles and brickbats were indiscriminately hurled towards the local people, endangering their lives and thereby caused panic and disorder in the locality. Mr. Ghosh contends that these incidents do not relate to public order. Mr. Ghosh submits that the incidents were the result of some private feud between the landlord and the tenants of premises No. 2 Jatindra Mohan Avenue. The grounds on the face of it do not indicate this and we are to consider the detention order on the basis of the grounds as furnished to the detenu. We cannot enter into the question of the truth or otherwise of the allegations made. But on the face of the allegations it appears that the incidents alleged affected the people of the locality in general and caused disturbance of public order. We must, therefore, conclude that the incidents alleged affected the public or at least a section of the public of the locality and, as such, we hold that they relate to public order. We do not, therefore, find sufficient reason to interfere with the order of detention in this case.

In the result, the Rule is discharged.

A.P. Das, J.

I agree.