Satbachan Singh vs State of Punjab

Ujagar Singh, J.

Satbachan Singh petitioner challenges his detention order (Annexure P1) passed by respondent No. 2 on 8.4.1987, saying that "........I am satisfied that he is likely to repeat and indulge in the aforesaid activities in case of his release in the aforesaid cases." The reference is to a case, First Information Report No. 133 dated 25.9.1986, under Sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code ; under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and section 3/4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur in which he is confined in District Jail, Hoshiarpur.

The grounds of detention are given in Annexure P2 and the same are :

(i) The petitioner has links with terrorists/extremists namely Ranjit Singh Rana son of Mota Singh, resident of Kathe Adhkare, Police Station Hariana; Mohinderpal Singh Pali, resident of Laksian, Police Station Mahilpur Charanjit Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, resident of Hariana, Police Station Sadar; Vijay Singh @ Surjinder Singh, resident of Rupowali, Police Station Tanda and others who are members of a gang of terrorists and extremists and indulging in activities like wanton killing of innocent persons to create terror in the public and committing heinous crime. The same were admitted by the petitioner during his interrogation by Inspector Surinder Pal Singh, Station House Officer, Mahilpur in the above said case;

(ii) During interrogation, the petitioner disclosed that about 20/25 days prior to the murder of Darshan Singh Canadian after reading an article "Bhindranwala Malesh Khalsa" in the newspaper, the petitioner, Rattan Singh, Tejinder Singh, Charanjit Singh and Ranjit Singh Rana assembled in the college canteen of Khalsa College, Mahilpur where Rattan Singh told them that he was advised by Dhana Singh, Member, Panthic Committee to kill Darshan Singh Canadian. In this connection, the petitioner and Mohinderpal Singh Pali were deputed to watch the activities of Darshan Singh Canadian. The petitioner and his said associates had held a meting in the said college canteen. The petitioner had also visited the tubewell of Darshan Singh. On 23.9.1986, at about 1.30 p.m., Rattan Singh and Sukhwinder Singh came in the college canteen where Mohinderpal Singh @ Pali had also come from Mahilpur Bazaar and reported that Darshan Singh Canadian was going towards his village near tempo union, Mahilpur and he was followed by the petitioner and Mohinderpal Singh on a scooter and shot dead on the way. (This is the background of the registration of the said case); and

(iii) The petitioner also admitted during interrogation that his group of terrorist was getting and obeying the orders of the Panthic Committee issued by Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha @ General Labh Singh and that the petitioner and his associates had been working for the implementation of orders issued by Panthic Committee. Weapons used for committing crime were given by the Panthic Committee and after committing crime were returned.

The detention order was opined by the Advisory Board to be based on sufficient cause and thereafter it was confirmed by the President of India under subsection (1) of Section 12 of the National Security Act, 1980 (No. 65 of 1980).

The affidavit of Shri V.V. Chadha, Under Secretary to Govt. Punjab Home Department, Chandigarh has been filed in reply to the petition. It is specifically stated therein that the representation of the petitioner dated 4.5.1987 was duly considered and rejected by the answering respondent on 25.5.1987. The rejection was conveyed to the petitioner through the Superintendent District Jail, Hoshiarpur vide Govt letter No. 2385 dated 25.5.1987. It is further stated that the detention order was approved by the answering respondent on 16.4.1987 and the approval was conveyed to the Government of India, vide letter dated 17.4.1987 as required under Section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980.

The affidavit of Shri M.S. Kailay, District Magistrate, Hoshiarpur is almost to the same effect. It has further been added in both the affidavits that the District Magistrate made enquiries and was satisfied that the petitioner was taking active steps to seek bail although there is no such thing in the order itself.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The detention order Annexure P1 indicates that the District Magistrate knew that the petitioner, was confined in District Jail, Hoshiarpur in the said case and according to his view, the petitioner was likely to repeat and indulge in the aforesaid activities in case of his release. Nothing is mentioned in the order as to whether the petitioner had made any application for bail and that the same has been declined, or not. Before passing the order, some record should have been seen in respect of the said case and the order is totally silent, as to whether the District Magistrate, Hoshiarpur had gone through the file of the case or not. It is not known as to when the petitioner was arrested in this case. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner agitated that no application for bail was moved on his behalf and, therefore, there is no possibility of the petitioner being released on bail. For passing an order like Annexure P1, it is the duty of the District Magistrate to satisfy that the release of the petitioner from custody was imminent and it has to be so mentioned in the order itself. Annexure P1 only shows that the District Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner was likely to repeat and indulge in the aforesaid activities in case of his release, without knowing as to whether any bail application had been moved or when the petitioner was going to be released. Although the said case was registered on 25.9.1986 but it is stated at the bar that no challan had been produced in Court as far. In Gulab Mehra v. State of U.P. & ors., 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 416 : 1987 III SVLR (CR) 108 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court, relied upon their own observations in Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah & others (AIR 1986 SC 315) which are as under :

"It is clear that the order of detention was passed as the detaining authority was apprehensive that in case the detenu was released on bail he would again carry on his criminal activities in the area. If the apprehension of the detaining authority was true, the bail application had to be opposed and in case bail was granted, challenge against that order in the higher forum had to be raised, merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an undertrial prisoner was likely to get bail an order of detention under the National Security Act should not ordinarily be passed. We are inclined to agree with counsel for petitioner that the order of detention in the circumstances is not sustainable and is contrary to the well settled principals indicated by this Court in series of cases relating to preventive detention. The impugned order, therefore, has to be quashed."

The foregoing observations aptly apply to the facts of the case in hand.

The representation, admittedly, was dated 4.5.1987 and it was considered and rejected by the State Government only on 25.5.1987. This long delay in disposing of the case has not at all been explained.

No details have been given in the reply. Immediate and speedy consideration of the representation is of vital importance and serves as a safeguard on subjective examination. In this contest, reference may be made to S.K. Rasid v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 824. It was held, "The ultimate object of this provision can only be a most speedy consideration of his representation by the authorities concerned, for without its expeditious consideration with a sense of urgency, the basic purpose of affording earliest opportunity to make the representation is likely to be defeated. In that case, the delay was of about 27 days.

The last or rather the only activity alleged against the petitioner is the case of murder registered vide First Information Report No. 133 dated 25.9.1986, mentioned above and the same is not, according to the material on the record, alleged to have been followed by any other such activity till the order Annexure P1 was passed and grounds Annexure P2 were given and both these documents are dated 8.4.1987. In this connection reference may be made for support to various authorities, including the cases Daya Ram v. Union of India and others, 1987(2) Ch. LR 41; Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab & another, 1987 Cr. Cr. C 18: Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab & others, 1987(1) Ch. LR 576. In Daya Ram''s case (supra), the alleged activity had taken place on 15.7.1985 and the order of detention, alongwith grounds of detention was issued on 12.3.1986 and there was a delay of about 8 months. This delay, alongwith delay in consideration of the representation, was considered to be fatal. It was held that there was no proximity/continuity between the occurrence and the detention of the petitioner. In Bhagwan Singh''s case (supra), there was again 8 months delay between the date of last activity and the passing of the detention order and it was held that the order appeared to be punitive rather than preventive. This ground alone was considered to be sufficient for quashing the detention. In Harnek Singh''s case (supra), the activity occurred on 27.2.1980 and the order of detention was passed on 4.11.1980. In these circumstances the detention was held to be of the character of punitive rather then preventive and therefore, this detention was held to be vitiated as the charge was so stale in relation to the detention as to have no real connection with it. In Balbir Singh''s case (supra), it was held that the delay of 9 months between the alleged prejudicial activity and the detention order was fatal in the absence of any explanation. The detention order was quashed as invalid.

In the present case, there is no material placed on the record with regard to the result of the First Information Report and it is not known, whether any challan was put in and thereafter there was any trial and what happened in that trial. There is also nothing to indicate as to what action has been taken against others involved in the said case, as it was not an individual activity. Detention order being of 8.4.1987, after about 61/2 months of alleged activity, no continuity or proximity is proved and order the therefore, became punitive. Even representation of the petitioner was considered only after about 20 days and it cannot be said to be immediate and thus, this late consideration is against the very spirit of the statute.

With these observations, the petition is accepted; the detention order Annexure P1 and the grounds of detention Annexure P2 as also the confirmation order, are quashed. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith in case he is not required in any other case.