IMPORTANT POINT
While passing order of detention u/s. 3 of National Security Act, there must be material apparently disclosed to the detaining authority in each case that the person against whom an order of preventive detention is being made is already under custody and yet under compelling reasons, his prevent his detention is necessary.

JUDGMENT

Jagannatha Shetty, J. - The arguments of this case concluded at the close of the court hours on December 18,1987. We then made the following order:

“We will give the reasons later. But we make the operative order here and now.

The detention order is quashed The detenu will be set at liberty forthwith.

2. Here are the reasons: In this writ petition, the validity of the detention of Arun Aggarwal has been challenged. He has been detained by the District Magistrate, Meerut by an order dated August 3, 1987 made under sec. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1990. The Government after the receipt of opinion of the Advisory Board, has approved the detention as required under sec. 12 (1) of that Act. The impugned order reads as under:

Office of the District Magistrate, Meerut

ORDER

As I am satisfied as District Magistrate, Meerut that issue of order to prevent Shri Arun Aggarwal, son of Shri Rattan Singh, resident of 234, 'L" Block, Shastri Nagar, Police Station, Medical, Meerut from doing act against the maintenance of public order is necessary. Therefore, in exercise power given in sub. section 3 of sec. of National Security Act, 1980 (Act No. 65/1980), I hereby give order that the above said Shri Arun Aggarwal, son of Shri Rattan Singh, resident of 234, ‘L' Block Shastri Nagar Police Station Medical, Meerut be detained in general category in District Meerut Jail in the custody of the Supdt. of the said jail under sub-section 2 of Sec. 3 of the above said Act Passed today dated 3.8.1987 under my signature and seal."

There are as many as five grounds of detention set out in the order. All relate to the offence said to have been committed by Arun Aggarwal on May 19, 1987. Two of the offence are said to have been committed as 9.00 A.M. on that day, the other two offences at 9.30 A.M. and the fifth one was alleged to have been committed, between 9.30 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. on the same day. In each of the grounds there is a mention to the following effect:

"Due to your above ill acts there broke out communal riots causing have loss to properties and lives of the people and your this ill act has spread fear and terror in the general public of Meerut City. In this manner, you have committed such an act which is against public law and order. "

All the cases referred to the grounds are non-bailable offences. In relation of those offences Arun Aggarwal was arrested as an accused on August 2, 1987. The detention order was passed and served on August 3, 1987. The order particularly stated:

"At present you are detained in District Jail, Meerut and you are trying to come out on bail and there is enough possibility of your being bailed out."

3. Before we consider the main ground raised in the petition, we may make one point clear. The order of detention repeatedly states that the detenu committing the alleged five offences set out in the detention order was the cause for breaking out communal riot in Meerut City. But in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated "that the communal riots broke out in Meerut on April 14, 1987 on the occasion of Shab-e-Barat That was controlled by the Administration. However, in the night intervening between 18/19 May, 1987, again a communal riot broke out." But all the offences said to have been committed by "the detenu were after 9.00 A.M on May 19,1987, It was not in intervening night between May 18/19. It was, therefore, inaccurate to state that the communal riot broke out due to the incidents attributed to the detenu on May 19, 1987.

4. The primary question however, is whether the detention of Arun Aggarwal could be justified solely on the ground that he was trying to come out on bail and there was enough possibility of his being bailed out and he would then act prejudicially to the interest of the public order. Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, leaned counsel for the State, sought to justify the dentention order relying upon the decision of this Court in Alijan Mian and another v. Dist