Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1-Sanjai Pratap Gupta @ Pappu (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) was detained pursuant to an order of detention passed under Section 3 (2) of the National security Act, 1980 (in short the act ). The order dated 23. 12. 2002 was served on the detenu on that day itself. According to the order and grounds of detention, the activities of the detenu were considered to be prejudicial to public order. Specific reference was made to an incident dated 13. 10. 2002. One Anand kumar Jain lost his life because of the firing done by the detenu and his associates. Attempt to take away the life of one Ajay Kumar Jain, son of aforesaid Anand Kumar Jain was made, but luckily he had escaped. Case was registered for commission of offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (in short the ipc ). Reference was also made to several earlier incidents which according to the detaining authority highlighted the criminal antecedents of the detenu and as to how he was creating a sense of terror in the minds of the general public. With a view to prevent him from committing similar prejudicial acts and to maintain public order the order of detention was purportedly passed.

( 3 ) A habeas corpus petition was filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the constitution) by the detenu questioning validity of the order of detention. By the impugned judgment the High Court accepted the prayer and quashed the order of detention. Before the High Court stand of the detenu was that the two aspects highlighted in the grounds of detention were not separable and were intimately linked with one another. As necessary documents to substantiate the allegations relating to earlier incidents were not supplied to the detenu that rendered the order of detention invalid.

( 4 ) STAND of the State on the other hand was that the two aspects were separable. Even if for the sake of arguments one part was held to be not supportable that really was of no consequence in view of Section 5-A of the Act. The High Court proceeded on the basis that the two aspects highlighted were inter-dependent and there was no question of separately considering the two aspects. Accordingly, the order of detention was passed.

( 5 ) IN support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the scope and ambit of Section 5-A of the Act has been completely lost sight of by the High Court. One aspect which was highlighted related to the criminal antecedents of the detenu and as to how there were many cases registered against him in the past for being treated him as a history sheeter. The second aspect related to a particular incident. The effect of the act was highlighted in the grounds of detention which was clearly spelt out as to how even tempo of life got disturbed by the act. Though, the detenu was in custody, taking into account the likelihood of his release on bail the order of detention was passed. Necessary documents like the bail application etc. were also supplied to the detenu. Learned counsel for the Union of India supported the stand of the State.

( 6 ) IN response, learned counsel for the detenu submitted that the two aspects indicated in the grounds of detention cannot be separated, one has its effects on the other and the high Court has rightly held them to be inseparable. In view of the factual position, Section 5-A of the Act has no application. Additionally, the incident which formed the foundation for the order of detention was at the most law and order situation and not a public order situation. Finally, it was submitted that even if it is held that the judgment of the High Court is bad yet direction should not have been given for taking him back to detention because of long passage of time and in the absence of any live link between the alleged incident and the requirement for his continued detention. A single act could not have been c