Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ.
Kamalveer Singh – Appellant
Versus
Adhikshak Janpad Karagar And Others – Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.47 of 2024
Decided on : 28-02-2024
HABEAS CORPUS - National Security Act - 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980 - 10 of the National Security Act, 1980 - 11(4) of the National Security Act, 1980 - 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India - 22(5) of the Constitution of India - 120B IPC - 302 IPC - 307 IPC - 7/25 of the Arms Act - 1985 ALJ 1222 - 1966 1 SCR 709 - 1970 1 SCC 98 - 2023 LiveLaw (SC) - 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 825 - 1972 2 SC 2686 - 1990 2 SCC 456 - 1983 4 SCC 301 - 1975 4 SCC 114 - 1980 4 SCC 544 - 1999 1 SCC 417
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Kamalveer Singh, filed a writ petition seeking release by issuing a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was implicated in multiple criminal cases and subsequently detained under the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioner challenged the legality of the preventive detention, arguing that the provisions of the National Security Act had been illegally invoked and that there was no chance of the petitioner being released on bail in the cases in which he was punitively detained. The petitioner also claimed that he was not given the assistance of lawyers/amicus curiae when the State was given the assistance of law officers. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the action taken under the National Security Act was based on a stale event and that the Union of India had delayed the decision on the representation sent by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the grounds of detention were vague and did not provide specific reasons for how public order was being disturbed. It also concluded that there was no chance of the petitioner being released on bail in the cases in which he was punitively detained. The Court further determined that the petitioner was not given the assistance of lawyers/amicus curiae when the State was given the assistance of law officers. Additionally, the Court held that the action taken under the National Security Act was based on a stale event and that the Union of India had delayed the decision on the representation sent by the petitioner. As a result, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the detention order, ordering the release of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues raised in the case included the legality of the preventive detention under the National Security Act, the lack of chance for the petitioner to be released on bail, the denial of legal assistance to the petitioner, the use of a stale event for invoking the National Security Act, and the delay in the decision on the petitioner's representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the finding that the grounds of detention were vague, there was no chance of the petitioner being released on bail, the petitioner was not given legal assistance, the action taken under the National Security Act was based on a stale event, and the Union of India had delayed the decision on the petitioner's representation. These factors led the Court to set aside the detention order and order the release of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the detention order dated 03.12.2023, which was confirmed on 03.01.2024, was set aside. The petitioner, Kamalveer Singh, was ordered to be set at liberty unless he was required in any other case.
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition has been filed for the release of the petitioner – Kamalveer Singh, by issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
2. Brief background of the case is that on 10.8.2023 an incident took place whereby one Anuj Chaudhary was killed and a First Information Report was lodged on the same day which gave rise to Case Crime No. 598 of 2023 registered under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. There were four named accused in the case being Amit Kumar, Pushpendra, Aniket and Prabhakar and it was also alleged that there were some other persons who were not known to the First Informant. The First Information Report was got lodged by one Sandeep Singh.
3. Thereafter on 01.11.2023 on the basis of an added Section, namely, section 120B IPC, the petitioner was also implicated in the Case Crime No.598 of 2023 in a conspiratorial role. Further on 07.11.2023 in Case Crime No.818 of 2023, under Section 7/25 of the Arms Act, the petitioner was named in the crime. Still further, on 28.11.2023, the petitioner was implicated in Case Crime No.861 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He was thereafter in jail.
4. Thereafter, on a report/proposal of the Police dated 30.11.2023, an order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, was passed wherein an order of detention was passed on 3.12.2023 by the District Magistrate for preventive detention of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the petitioner was not named in the First Information Report and only when there was a communication of the brother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Neeraj Khatri the name of the petitioner had surfaced. Thereafter in pursuance of the provisions under Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980, on 12.12.2023 the order of approval was passed by the State Government. The order of preventive detention dated 3.12.2023 was also accompanied by the grounds of detention which were of the same date and they gave reasons on the basis of which detention had been made. In the order dated 3.12.2023 it was also provided that the petitioner could represent before the Advisory Board as is provided under Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980. Simultaneously the petitioner was also given the opportunity to represent to the Union of India under Section 3(4) of the National Security Act. The petitioner thereafter on the order dated 3.12.2023 being approved under Section 3(4) of the National Security Act, 1980, represented to the Advisory Board by a representation dated 13.12.2023 and also sent his representation to the Union of India through the State Government on the very same date.
6. Thereafter on 16.12.2023 an alleged hearing was undergone and on 3.1.2024 the order of the State Government was passed by which the petitioner’s detention order dated 3.12.2023 was confirmed in view of the report of the Advisory Board. The order dated 3.1.2024 provided the preventive detention of the detenue for a period of 3 months, tentatively, from the date of detention.
7. The representation which was sent to the Union of India on 13.12.2023 was received by the Union of India on 22.12.2023 and, thereafter, it was rejected on 23.12.2023 and the communication of the rejection order was sent to the petitioner on 26.12.2023.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the mere submission of the petitioner that the preventive detention was illegal was sufficient enough for the petitioner to approach this Court and that the State ought to have justified its stand in passing orders. It was sufficient for him to state that the detention order dated 3.12.2023 which was confirmed by the order dated 3.1.2024 was illegally passed and be set aside.
9. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Icchu Devi Choraria vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1980 SC 1983 and Mohinuddin @ Moin Master vs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that preventive detention under the National Security Act must be based on specific and justifiable grounds, and the detaining authority must ensur....
Preventive detention under the National Security Act requires subjective satisfaction of the authorities that the detenue is likely to disturb public order based on gathered evidence and present cond....
The detention order was quashed due to procedural violations and lack of connection between the detenu's past conduct and the necessity for detention under the National Security Act.
The detaining authority must be aware of all material circumstances and provide complete information, and there is a constitutional obligation to afford timely representation.
The detention order under the National Security Act was based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, considering the likelihood of the detainee being released from custody in the ....
The court established that detainees under the National Security Act must be afforded the right to legal representation, and that detention orders must adhere strictly to statutory procedures regardi....
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
