Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Palok Basu, J.P. Semwal, JJ.
Altaf Alias Bare Abba – Appellants
Versus
District Magistrate, Kanpur - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 12132 of 1993 and Habeas Corpus Petition No. 8850 of 1993
Decided on : Oct 01, 1993
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT - DETENTION ORDER - GROUNDS - SINGLE INCIDENT - PUBLIC ORDER - BAIL APPLICATION - REPRESENTATION - DELAY - ARTICLE 22(5) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
Two petitioners, Altaf and Sharif, were detained under the National Security Act (NSA) by the District Magistrate of Kanpur, citing their involvement in communal violence and the likelihood of their release on bail as grounds for detention. The petitioners challenged the detention orders, arguing that a single incident could not be considered prejudicial to public order, that the allegation of their likelihood of being released on bail was a misnomer, and that the delay in sending the District Magistrate's comments along with the representation to the State Government violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the two incidents, though distinct, could be considered together as they were part of the same transaction and were calculated to disturb public order. The Court also rejected the argument that a single incident could not be a valid ground for detention, citing precedents where a single act of wagon breaking or theft of railway materials was deemed sufficient to convey satisfaction to the detaining authority. The Court further held that the allegation of the petitioners' likelihood of being released on bail was not a misnomer, as the petitioners had indeed moved bail applications and the District Magistrate had recorded his satisfaction that their release would be prejudicial to public order. Regarding the delay in sending the District Magistrate's comments, the Court found that the representation and its decision were completed within 10 days in both cases, and therefore, there was no violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether a single incident can be considered prejudicial to public order under the NSA. 2. Whether the allegation of the petitioners' likelihood of being released on bail was a misnomer. 3. Whether the delay in sending the District Magistrate's comments along with the representation to the State Government violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A single incident can be considered prejudicial to public order under the NSA if it is calculated to disturb public order and if the detaining authority is satisfied that the individual may indulge in such activity in the future. 2. The allegation of the petitioners' likelihood of being released on bail was not a misnomer, as the petitioners had indeed moved bail applications and the District Magistrate had recorded his satisfaction that their release would be prejudicial to public order. 3. The delay in sending the District Magistrate's comments along with the representation to the State Government did not violate Article 22(5) of the Constitution, as the representation and its decision were completed within 10 days in both cases.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both petitions, upholding the detention orders passed against the petitioners under the NSA.
Palok Basu, J.
1. ALTAF is presently detained in pursuance of an order dated 6-1-1993 under section 3 (2) of the National security Act (for short the Act) passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur, Similarly, Sharif stands detained by an order dated 30-12-1992 also passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur, Both those orders are under challenge in these two petitions which are being disposed of together, as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties because the grounds of detention mentioned in both the orders are same.
2. THE entire grounds of detention have to be mentioned in order to deal with various arguments advanced. Translated into English, the grounds would read as under-
"1. That on 18-12-1992, constable 269 Sri Shyam Singh Yadav of Reserve police Lines, Kanpur Dehat, lodged a written report at police Station Rail Bazar that on 7-12-1992 at about 8.30 A.M. when he was going from Police Lines to Police office, you along with 200/250 persons of Muslim Community came from the eastern side shouting slogan 'Allah-ho-Akbar' and surrounded him. You and your companions attacked the police constable with knives with intent to cause death and his H.M.T. Watch, A-1, cycle and Rs. 500/- were looted. Somehow he managed to protect himself and reached Police Lines, Kanpur Dehat from where he was taken to Ursla Hospital by his colleagues and after being discharged from Ursla Hospital he got registered the said report against you and your companions.
"Constable Shyam Singh's report of offence under section 395/307 IPC. has been registered as Case Crime No. 443/92 at P.S. Rail Bazar against you and your companions, true copy of which is Annexure-I and true copy of the injury report is Annexure II.
"On 8-12-1992 the newspaper Dainik Jagran reported the incident with the heading "Kanpur Jal UTHA/SOLAH MAREY/S. P. KEY KAFILEY PAR HAMLA/SENA BULA1 GAI/RAIL BAZAR BHI HINSA KI CHAPET MEN/JAGAH JAGAH AAG ZANI GOLI BARI WA BAM KE DHAMAKEY". THE incident relating to knife injury to the police constable has also been mentioned. True copy of the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' dated 8 -12-1992 is Annexure III.
"You and your companions have committed the aforesaid criminal act being under the influence of communal feelings at about 8.30 in the morning. THE place of incident is very significant as the Reserve Police Lines, Kanpur Dehat is closes to it and the office of the D.I.G. Police and others including respectable persons and residential quarters of officers are also in the immediate neighbourhood. As a result of the said incident in the nearby locality and the area fear awe and terror spread causing stampede and all nearby residents closed their doors and windows and in this manner the incident resulting in knife injuries to the police employee compelled posting of additional Force in the Rail Bazar area, curfew order had to be imposed and the public order was completely disrupted.
"THE aforesaid criminal act of yours is prejudicial to maintenance of the public order. "2. On 7-12-1992 the Station Officer, Rail Bazar, Sri Ravindra Singh Bhadauriya was informed by an informer at about 8.30 A.M. when he was busy in the law and order duty near Central Hotel within P.S. Rail Bazar to the effect that at Faithfulgunj Crossing rioters belonging to Muslim Community were indulging- in looting the shops belonging to Hindu Community and setting fire to them. At this information the Station Officer informed the higher authorities on wireless and by the time he reached police Station Rail Bazar at 9 A.M. he saw about 100 or 150 rioters of Muslim Community, shouting inflammatory slogan, were indulging in breaking Kali Mandir situated by the side of P. S. Rail Bazar, that the Station Officer Sri Bhadauriya accosted the rioters who ran towards the back side and the Station Officer then chased those to some distance when he noticed about 1000 or 1200 Muslim Community rioters had looted the shops of Hindu Community and had set fire to them. That in the mean
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
