Back
1989 Supreme(Bom) 189
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
KURDUKAR AND AGARWAL, JJ.
Robin alias Robert Sanna Joseph, Petitioner
Versus
V. K. Saraf, Commissioner of
Crl. Writ Petn. No. 406 of 1989
Decided on : 28 -7 -1989.
S.R. Chitnis, for Petitioner; N.M. Kachare, Public Prosecutor; J.C. Satpute with Smt. Neeta Masurkar, for Respondent.
The criminal activities of a detenu and his associates, which indicate criminal potentiality possessed by him of committing criminal offences of assault on innocent persons, fall within the domain of 'public order' and not 'law and order'.
Headnote:
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 - Detention - Grounds - Public order - Criminal activities of the detenu and his associates - Whether fall within the domain of 'public order' and not 'law and order' - Representation to the Central Government - Delay in disposal - Explanation - Whether satisfactory.
Fact of the Case:
The detenu was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, on the grounds of his involvement in various criminal activities, including assault, rioting, and possession of weapons. The detenu challenged the detention order on the grounds that the incidents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were stale and that they fell within the domain of law and order and not public order. The detenu also contended that there was inordinate delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of his representation against the detention order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the criminal activities of the detenu and his associates, as disclosed in the grounds of detention, indicated criminal potentiality possessed by him of committing criminal offences of assault on innocent persons. The Court further held that the Detaining Authority was justified in reaching the subjective satisfaction that if the detenu avails the bail order, he is likely to revert back to his criminal activities which would disturb the public order. The Court also held that the delay in disposal of the detenu's representation by the Central Government was satisfactorily explained.
Issues: 1. Whether the criminal activities of the detenu and his associates fall within the domain of 'public order' and not 'law and order'. 2. Whether the delay in disposal of the detenu's representation by the Central Government was satisfactorily explained.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the criminal activities of the detenu and his associates, as disclosed in the grounds of detention, indicated criminal potentiality possessed by him of committing criminal offences of assault on innocent persons. The Court further held that the Detaining Authority was justified in reaching the subjective satisfaction that if the detenu avails the bail order, he is likely to revert back to his criminal activities which would disturb the public order. 2. The Court held that the delay in disposal of the detenu's representation by the Central Government was satisfactorily explained.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the detention order.
KURDUKAR, J. :- One Robin alias Robert Sanna Joseph came to be detained pursuant to the order of detention dated 20th January, 1989 issued under S.3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the 1st respondent - the Detaining Authority. This detention order was served on the detenu on 31st January, 1989.
2. The 1st respondent is the Detaining Authority - Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay. The 2nd respondent is the State of Maharashtra and the 3rd respondent is the Union of India. At the outset, it must be stated that this writ petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Vakalatnama which is on record is signed by the detenu. But, however, the writ petition has been sworn by one Mohan Gangadhar Mohite, who claims to be next friend of the detenu. The writ petition, therefore, is not sworn by the detenu himself. In the body of the writ petition, no-where the next friend has set out as to what is the source of his knowledge to state that contents of paragraphs 1 to 6, 8 and 9 are true to his own knowledge. This only indicates the casual approach in filing the habeas corpus petition. This, however, does not come in our way in disposal of the writ petition on merits. Various contentions have been raised before us and in order to appreciate the same it would be necessary to set out the grounds of detention formulated by the Detaining Authority. The grounds of detention read as under :
"On 3-3-1988 at about 23-30 hours while Rajendra Parmar was proceeding along Dr. Ambedkar Road in order to go to witness the 'Holi' celebration at the junction of 13th and 19th Road, Khar, Bombay, at that time you along with your friend, Sushil was also proceeding along Dr. Ambedkar Road, Khar, Bombay in the opposite direction. When Rajendra Parmar reached near the Hanuman temple opposite Kalidin Chawl, you deliberately gave a push to Rajendra Parmar. When Rajendra Parmar enquired with you as to why you pushed him, you abused him saying. There was an exchange of hot words between you and Rajendra Parmar, during which you pulled out a knife hidden under your shirt near waste and gave a blow with it on his left leg. Rajendra Parmar shouted for help but nobody came forward. Thereafter, you and your friend Sushil left the place. The injured was removed to the Bhabha Hospital for treatment for his injuries sustained by him. An offence vide Bandra Police Station C.R. No. 215/1988 under S.324 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against you. You were arrested on 8-3-1988 and subsequently released on bail in the sum of Rs. 1500/- with one surety in the like amount under the order of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra. You have availed yourself of the bail facility.
II. On 1-5-1988 at about 20-30 hours one Pramod Kadam along with his minor son and others including yourself and your associate Nitesh Kasare were dancing in a marriage procession which was proceeding along Dr. Ambedkar Road, Khar West, Bombay 400 052. When the marriage procession was proceeding along the Goregaon wineshop you suddenly took out a chopper concealed near your waist and gave blow with it on left leg of Pramod Kadam suspecting him to be a police informant. He shouted in pain when your associate assaulted Pramod Kadam with fist blows and kicks. Members of public started collecting when you and your associate Nitesh Kasare left the place. Injured Pramod Kadam was removed to the Cooper Hospital for medical treatment. In this connection, a case was registered against you and your associate vide Bandra Police Station C.R. No. 383/1988 under Sections 324-114 of the Indian Penal Code. You and your associate Nitesh Kasare arrested on 4-5-1988. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, ordered you and your associate Nitesh Kasare to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 2000/- each with one surety in the like amount You availed yourself of the bail facility.
III. On 3-8-
