SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(All) 95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, SADHNA RANI (THAKUR), JJ.
Kamlesh Pathak - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India And Others - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 310 of 2021
Decided On : 18-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anurag Yadav, Mahendra Pratap.
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., G.A., Raj Kumari Devi.

The detaining authority must be aware of all material circumstances and provide complete information, and there is a constitutional obligation to afford timely representation.

Headnote:

National Security Act - Preventive Detention - Section 3(2) (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition to quash the detention order passed by the District Magistrate under the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioner was accused of attempting to grab land, indiscriminate firing resulting in deaths and injuries, and other criminal activities. The detention order was extended multiple times, and the petitioner challenged the legality of the detention based on procedural irregularities and delay in considering the representation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the detention order was vitiated due to the detaining authority's lack of awareness of relevant material and incomplete information. The court also held that the delay in considering the petitioner's representation by the Central Government was unjustified, violating the constitutional obligation to afford the earliest opportunity for representation.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the detention order, including the detaining authority's awareness of relevant material, the completeness of information, and the delay in considering the petitioner's representation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the detaining authority's awareness of all material circumstances and the obligation to provide complete information. It also highlighted the constitutional obligation to afford timely representation and the unjustifiability of delays in the decision-making process.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the detention order and setting aside the extension orders. The petitioner was held not to be kept under detention pursuant to the detention order.

JUDGMENT :

Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Law was set into motion with lodging of the first information report on 15.3.2020 by Sri Ashish Kumar, registered as case crime no. 189 of 2020 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya.

3. As per the allegations of the first information report, the petitioner Kamlesh Pathak along with other co accused persons armed with licensee and illegal weapons tried to grab the land of Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir. When the local people resisted, the present petitioner and his aids started indiscriminate firing due to which Advocate Manjul Chaubey and his sister Sudha Chaubey were killed and three other persons got injured. Earlier also, the petitioner had illegally grabbed the land of Kaleshwar Bhole Baba Dev Kali Mandir and forcibly appointed his younger brother as Mahant of the said temple. On the same day, i.e. on 15.3.2020 the petitioner was arrested and case crime no. 190 of 2020 under section 25 Arms Act and case crime no. 196 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act were registered against him and co-accused. Later on case crime no. 462 of 2020 under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was also registered against the petitioner and others.

4. On the recommendation reports of the Station House Officer, police station Kotwali Auraiya, Circle Officer police station Auraiya, Additional Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police Auraiya all dated 9.1.2021, the detention order was passed on 10.1.2021 by the District Magistrate, Auraiya exercising the power under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

5. The instant Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned detention order passed by the respondent no. 3, the District Magistrate, Auraiya vide no. 10/J.A.-N.S.A./2021 dated 10.1.2021 and orders dated 4.3.2021, 5.4.2021, 5.7.2021 and 1.10.2021 extending detention of the petitioner.

6. It is settled principle that preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. To prevent the misuse of this potentially dangerous power, the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however technical, is mandatory and vital.

7. Certain dates of the proceedings undertaken against the petitioner are relevant to be noted at the outset.

8. On the basis of occurrence dated 15.3.2020, the first information report as case crime no. 189 of 2020 was lodged against the petitioner and co-accused. Later on case crime no. 190 of 2020, 196 of 2020 and 462 of 2020 mentioned above were also registered against the petitioner and others. After that on the recommendation reports of the Station House Officer Kotwali Auraiya, Circle Officer Kotwali Auraiya, Additional Superintendent of Police, Auraiya and Superintendent of Police Auraiya all dated 9.1.2021, the detention order dated 10.1.2021 was passed by the Detaining Authority which was approved on 19.1.2021 by the State Government. On 21.1.2021, the petitioner submitted 9 copies of representations addressing to four authorities. The jail authority sent those representations to the District Magistrate Auraiya on the same day, which were received in the office of the District Magistrate, Auraiya on 22.1.2021. After obtaining police reports on 25.1.2021 the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the District Magistrate and said order was communicated to the petitioner through the jail authority on 25.1.2021 itself. On 27.1.2021, the State Government received the representation along with the letter of the District Magistrate Auraiya dated 25.1.2021. On 28.1.2021, the State Government sent the representation to the Central Government and A

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top