IMPORTANT POINT
Where detaining authority knew that petitioners were in jail but they were likely to he enlarged on bail then detention order can be passed under section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 of The detaining authority has the apprehension from the petitioners regarding the breach of public order on their release.

Headnote:(i) National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2)-Detention of Petitioners under Petitioners already in jail when detention orders were passed Detaining authority alive to this fact and apprehending their release passed detention orders to prevent them to create problems of public order-Whether valid? (Yes) (Para 9)
       (ii) National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2)-Detention of petitioners under as result of two incidents-Criminal proceedings also pending for those incidents-Is criminal prosecution an absolute bar to the order of preventive detention? (No) (Paras 10 and 11)
       (iii) National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2) Detention of petitioners on the basis of two incidents-Petitioners throwing bomb in a large gathering at the dead of night-Whether makes out a case of "Public order" or only "law and order"? (public order)- Apprehension of breach of public order if petitioners hated out-Whether justified? (Yes) (Paras 11, to 14)
       (iv) National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2)-Detention order under Order based on two criminal incidents-No allegation in their F.I.R. of apprehension of breach of public order-Detaining authority, however, having additional material before it which satisfied him about the apprehension of breach of public order from the petitioners in case they were enlarged on bail-Whether absence of any apprehension of breach of public order in F.I.R. of any avail to petitioners? (No) (Para l5)

JUDGMENT

R. B. Misra, J. - These two connected petitions seek to challenge the orders of detention dated 2nd December, 1982 passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980(No. 65 of 1983) read with notification No. 3183/C dated 15th of October, 1982 of the Government of Bihar.

2. Alijan Mian, the petitioner in the first petition, is an employer of the Eastern Coalfields Limited working at Khudia Colliery as a dumper driver Jadunandan Sah, the petitioner in the second petition, is also a dumper driver in Gopi Nathpur Colliery.

3. The object of the order of detention as indicated in the impugned order was to prevent the petitioners from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order The grounds of detention supplied to the petitioners are in identical terms and they are as follows:

"1. That on 15/16-10-82, at about 2.30 A.M. the subject alongwith Jadunandan Sah and 3 others went to Khudia Colliery and dragged one Shri Ram Briksh Chauhan who were witnessing a cultural programmed and started assaulting him in presence of large gathering who were there to see the cultural programmed. This created great panic and alarm in the area and adversely affected the public order. Hearing the cry, Mussafir Chauhan came there but seeing the subject and his associates engaged in the assault of his brother started running away for his life. The subject and his associates, with an intention to establish criminal supremacy and to kill him threw two bombs on him, resulting in grievous injury to Mussafir Singh. This adversely affected the public order and persons who were witnessing the cultural programme started running helter and skelter for their lives. This refers to Nirsa P.S. Case No. 189 dated 6-10-1982 under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code, 3/5 Explosive Sub. Act. Thus the subject acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.

2. That on 8-11-1982, at about 11.30 A.M. the subject alongwith Rambriksh Singh, Jadunandan Mahato and Chandra Shekhar Singh armed with bombs, gun, etc. went to the house of Ram Naresh Chauhan in Kudia Colliery. One of his associates under the direction and guidance of the subject opened fire on Shri Chauhan resulting in grievous injury to him. Opening of gun fire in a thickly populated residential colony of Kudia Colliery created great panic and alarm in the area and adversely affected public order. This refers to Nirsa P.S. case No. 208 dated 8-11-1982 under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code and section 27 Arms Act. Thus the subject acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The subject is in jail and is likely to be released on bail. As such the detention order was served in jail.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that if he is allowed to remain at large he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

For prevention of such activities, I consider his detention necessary. Shri Alijan Mian is informed that he may make a representation in writing against the order under which he has been detained. His representation, if any, may be addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Home (Spl) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and forwarded through the Superintendent of Jail, Dhanbad as early as possible."

4. The orders of detention were sequal to two incidents of 15/16th October and 8th November, 1982 giving rise to two criminal cases, Nirsa P.S. Case No. 189 and Nirsa P.S. Case No. 208 of 1982 respectively. The petitioner Alijan Mian was arrested on 8th November, 1982 while the petitioner Jadunanan Sah was arrested on 12th of November, 1982 in connection with the aforesaid incidents.

5. The petitioners made representation against the order of detention in both the cases and the representations were on the same pattern. Their stand was that they were active members of the union of workers of the colliery, viz, the Colliery Mazdoor Sabha. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (2)