Ranjit Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

K.S. Bhalla, J.—Petitioner Ranjit Singh was arrested on 25111987 in case F.I.R. No. 170 of Police Station Dhuri and while he was under detention in District Jail, Patiala, detention order annexure P I dated 121986 i.e. after 21/4 months of his arrest was passed by District Magistrate, Sangrur, who is respondent No. 2 herein, under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. Detention order is admittedly based on the solitary incident with regard to which the above referred to case was registered. Through present writ petition. the said detention order has been challenged by detainee petitioner.

It is raid in the detention order that the petitioner was likely to indulge in prejudicial activities on account of his propensity towards such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of the State. Same is the stand taken by the respondents in their replies to the writ petition. There, however, does not appear to be any justification for such presumption. Propensity towards prejudicial activities can only be gathered from continuity of actions and single instance can never be treated to be sufficient to draw such an inference. It is clear from the grounds of detention (translation annexure P2) as well as reply of respondent No. 2 that supporting material on which the grounds of detention were based was only FIR No. 170 dated 25111987 and there was no other activity whatsoever which might have supplied such material. The inference. drawn against the petitioner with regard to propensity towards prejudicial activity thus was not justified so as to call for detention under National Security Act.

Again, there was neither any rational nexus between alleged activities and the detention order. Occurrence with regard to FIR No. 170 of 1987 took place on 25111987 and the detention order was made on 121988. In the absence of proximity the alleged ground for obvious reasons was stale and particularly when the petitioner admittedly was already in custody throughout this period, the detention order naturally was based on speculative and imaginary circumstances. Being in custody, the petitioner could not have possibly indulged in any prejudicial activities. The petitioner has stated in the petition that he never applied for bail and any application for bail on his behalf has neither been pointed out in any of the two replies filed on behalf of the respondents. Challan has neither been shown to have been presented in Court so as to permit trial of the petitioner in case FIR No. 170 of 1987. Thus there was no likelihood of the release of the petitioner in the near future so as to call for any imminent necessity for passing of the detention order. An administrative order is always open to judicial review and mere mention of subjective satisfaction of administrative authority when the attending circumstances do not permit the same cannot be treated to be sufficient. There was no possibility of the petitioner to indulge objectionable or prejudicial activities in the near future so that requisite detention order may be said to be justifiably called for. In the absence of any bail application or presentation of challan question of petitioner''s release from custody on bail or otherwise and not arise. Despite that, when the District Magistrate states that he felt satisfied with regard to petitioner''s indulging in such activities in future, it indicates lack of application of mind by the said authority at the time of passing of the detention order.

In any case,, it must appear from the order that the same was passed after application of mind taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration. In this case, however, from the material placed before me, it appears that application of mind by the authority making the detention order was badly lacking. Although it is admitted in the detention order that at the time of its making petitioner was in custody in District Jail Patiala, any steps taken by him to get himself released have not been spelt out therein. Further on the one hand it is mentioned in the detention order itself that the District Magistrate was conscious of the fact that the petitioner was then in judicial custody and on the other hand, while issuing a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, with regard to execution of the order. it is mentioned in the detention order that he shall lodge Shri Ranjit Singh son of Zora Singh in the Patiala Jail. A person who is already an inmate of district jail Patiala, cannot possibly be lodged therein after making of the detention order. In fact his lodging in jail preceded the detention order. Allegation of the petitioner made in this respect could not specifically be met with by any of the two respondents. From all this it appears that the detention order was prepared in a set porforma and was signed by the District Magistrate concerned in a mechanical manner without application of mind. This conclusion of mire is further reinforced by the reply on behalf of respondent No. 2, i.e. District Magistrate, Sangrur who has stated at page 3 in subpara (v), the mere fact that this order is in the cyclostyled proforma hardly matters especially when this detention order contains the full particulars. This reply of his is indicative of the fact that merely a cyclostyled proforma as already prepared was filled in for the sake of passing of the detention order. Thus the detention order is also bad for want of application of mind by the detaining authority.

Detention under National Security Act recognisedly is a preventive measure and not punitive one. Petitioner was in custody for quite some time before the making of the detention order and when possibility of his release has not been properly made out in the order annexure P1, question or his indulging in prejudicial activities in future in the absence of impugned detention order could not arise so as to call for a preventive action. Preventive detention is to be resorted to in. exceptional cases and should be brought out with great deal of circumspection. There must be awareness of the facts in respect of preventive custody of a person for social defence which is badly lacking in this case.

To sum up, it cannot be said to be a fit cast to resort to preventive detention. On the other hand, the action taken appears to be punitive one. Also there was clear nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority at the time of making of the detention order. In the result, the order of detention dated 121989 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There being no statement in the petition with regard to release or the petitioner on bail at any stage there will be no order for release of the detenu.