Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : V.K. SHUKLA AND SHASHI KANT, JJ.
RADHEY SHYAM PARCHA .....Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 67734 of 2013, decided on 25th July, 2014)
The legal document pertains to a habeas corpus petition challenging the validity of a preventive detention order issued under the National Security Act. The core issues examined include the basis of the detention order, particularly whether the order was founded on relevant and reliable material, and whether the possibility of the petitioner being released on bail was a sufficient ground for detention.
Key Points:
The detention was based on the apprehension that the petitioner might be released on bail, which the court found to be unsupported by cogent and reliable material (!) (!) .
The detention order was issued despite the petitioner having only moved a bail application in one of the three criminal cases against him; in the other two cases, no bail applications were filed or pending at the time of detention (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The reports relied upon by the detaining authority, including beat reports and affirmations by officers, were deemed speculative and mechanically accepted without independent verification, thus rendering the detention order illegal (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the detaining authority’s satisfaction must be based on relevant, reliable, and objective material. Mere reports suggesting attempts to secure bail, without actual pending applications or other supporting evidence, do not constitute sufficient grounds for detention (!) (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the detention order was essentially based on the "ipse dixit" of the detaining authority, which is not permissible when the material is not cogent or reliable (!) (!) .
The order of detention was quashed because it was found to be arbitrary and not supported by proper material, and the petitioner was directed to be released if not wanted in any other case (!) .
The court noted that the detention order was passed immediately after the rejection of the bail application, relying on reports that did not conclusively establish the likelihood of bail, making the detention order illegal (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of objective and reliable evidence in preventive detention cases and condemns reliance on vague or speculative reports to justify detention based on the possibility of bail.
By the Court.—Radhey Shyam Parcha s/o Sheetal Prasad is before this Court with a request to quash the detention order dated 14th of September, 2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Shamli under Section 3 (2) (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 and further prayer has been made to direct release of the petitioner forthwith.
Brief background of the case as is emanating in the present case is that an FIR was lodged by Jai Bhagwan s/o Ram Kishore at police station Kotwali Shamli, district Shamli being Case Crime No. 261 of 2013 under Sections 147/148/149/323/504/506/153-A IPC and Section 3 (1) X of SC/ST Act on 3.9.2013 at 19.45 p.m. against Israr, Intezar both sons of Iliyas and Azam as well as other unknown persons stating therein that Israr, Intezar and Azam and other dozens persons of Muslim community came armed with weapons and country made pistols and after using ‘Jati Suchak’ abuses with intention to cause death committed marpeet in which Sagar son of Mohan has sustained grievous injuries. Petitioner has proceeded to mention that thereafter on 3.9.2013 at 19.45, a First Information Report was lodged by one Syed son of Abdul Rahman at police station Kotwali Shamli, district Shamli being Case Crime No. 262 of 2013 under Sections 147/148/149/302/307/323/324/504/153-A IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act against the 11 named and other unnamed persons including the petitioner mentioning therein that on 3.9.2013 at Timurshah there has been some clashes with members of Valmiki community, thereafter, Ghanshyam Parcha has asked members of Valmiki community to assemble with arms, and pursuant thereto petitioner and other members and dozen of unknown members of unlawful assembly opened fire with common intention wherein fire-arm injuries has been received by Ehsan, who died, and dozen of other persons received fire-arm injuries. Petitioner has further submitted that on 3.9.2013 an FIR was lodged by Rampal at police station Kotwali Shamli, district Shamli being Case Crime No. 263 of 2013 under Sections 147/427/323/504/153-A IPC and therein it was mentioned that while he was returning with his relatives and friends from Nozal to his village, then 10-15 persons intercepted the vehicle and the vehicle in question was damaged and when Mohd. Harun tried to prevent it then he was attacked and when people started collecting there, said persons fled from the scene.
2. Petitioner has contended that after the said incident in question has taken place the public order and public tranquility was disturbed by the persons of Muslim community and, consequently, there was communal tension in between both the communities and both the community rushed near Shiv Chowk and raised slogans against each other and also thrown stones against each other. In respect of the incident, a First Information Report was lodged by Om Prakash, Inspector, police station Kotwali Shamli on 3.9.2013 at 23.40 p.m. being Case Crime No. 264 of 2013 under Sections 147/148/149/307/342/336/436/392/427/323/504/506/153-A IPC and Section 3/4 Prevention of Public Property Damages Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act mentioning therein that communal harmony had been completely disturbed, and it was free for all, shops, houses, motorcycles were being burnt and entire incident was orchestrated by petitioner, his brother and about 100-150 persons, who all were armed. Details have also been given that one could hear shrieks of children, women folk and there has been complete anarchy and incident of loot and arsoning has also been committed by the members of Muslim community and large scale reinforcement had to be asked for.
3. Petitioner has proceeded to mention that in reference of the aforementioned three criminal cases that have been so registered petitioner has been arrested and has been detained in jail. Thereafter, petitioner has moved an application for bail before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned in Case Crime No. 262 of 2013 under Sections 1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
