Back
1995 JLJ 545
V.L. Bhat, C.J. and R.S. Garg, J.
Raheeman Bi (Smt.) v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others
W.P. No. 3382 of 1994; Decided on 20.1.1995.
It would be important to note here that the words i-l- i=- v-Ø- are deleted from the item No. 3 of schedule, it has been added in the hand-writing of some one "Nakal Jarayam 89/91, 92/91, 259/91, 224/92, 223/92, 286/93 and 284/93". This we have mentioned in details to show that prima fade, the affidavit of the District Magistrate is far from being true and is misleading. Since the copies of the first information reports were never produced before the District Magistrate he could not have supplied the copies to the detenu. Even the letter of the District Magistrate clearly 15tates that only Jarayam Nakal were supplied to the detenue and not the first information reports. The affidavit of the District Magistrate which exhibitsa sorry state of affairs establishes non-application of mind and would affect his subjective satisfaction. [Para 11
(2) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- antecedent of detenu -- unreasonable delay between last offence and order of detention -- renders no real nexus between the two.
When an unreasonable period has elapsed between the date of the incident and the date of the order of detention, an inference may legitimately be drawn that there is no nexus between the two, but such a view would not be warranted unless the Court finds that the grounds are stale or illusory or that there is no real nexus between the two. 1993 (II) Crimes 407 relied on. AIR 1986 SC 610, AIR 1982 SC 8, AIR 1988 SC 1835 and AIR 1990 SC 225 followed. AIR 1975 SC 473 discussed. [Paras 12 & 14
¼1½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3 && ftyk eftLVªsV ds ‘kiFki= esa euksfu;ksx ugha fd;k tkuk nf‘kZr && O;fDrijd lek/kku izHkkforA
;gk¡ ;g fVIi.k djuk egRoiw.kZ gksxk fd ‘‘kCn ^^i-la-i=- v-Ø-** vuqlwph dh en Ø-3 ls gVk, x, gSa] ;g fdlh ds gLrys[k esa tksM+s x, gSa] ^^udy tjk;e 89@91] 92@91] 259@91] 224@92] 223@92] 286@93 rFkk 384@93**A geus bldk C;kSjsokj mYys[k ;g n‘kkZus ds fy, fd;k gS fd ftyk eftLVªsV dk ‘kiFki= izFken`"V~;k lR; ugha gS rFkk Hkzked gSA D;ksafd izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVksZa dh izfr;k¡ ftyk eftLVªsV ds le{k dHkh izLrqr ugha dh xbZa] og fu:) O;fDr dks izfr;k¡ iznk; ugha dj ldrs FksA ftyk eftLVªsV ds i= esa Hkh Li"Vr% dfFkr gS fd fu:) O;fDr dks tjk;e udy gh iznk; dh xbZ Fkha] izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVsZa ughaA ftyk eftLVªsV ds ‘kiFki= ls] ftl ls [ksntud vofLFkfr iznf‘kZr gksrh gS] euksfu;ksx ugha fd;k tkuk LFkkfir gksrk gS rFkk mldk O;fDrijd lek/kku izHkkfor gksrk gSA ¿ iSjk 11
¼2½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3 && fu:) O;fDr dk iwoZo`Ùk && vafre vijk/k rFkk fujks/kkns‘k ds chp v;qfDr;qDr foyac && nksuksa ds chp okLrfod laca/k ugha curkA
tc ?kVuk ds fnukad rFkk fujks/kkns‘k ds fnukad ds chp v;qfDr;qDr vof/k chr tkrh gS] rc ;g vuqeku fof/klEer :i ls fd;k tk ldrk gS fd nksuksa ds chp laca/k ugha gSa fdarq ,slk n`f"Vdks.k rc rd okaNuh; ugha gS tc rd U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fu"d"kZ u fudkyk tk, fd vk/kkj dky&frjksfgr vFkok HkzeksRiknd gSa vFkok nksuksa ds chp okLrfod laca/k ugha gSA 1993 ¼2½ ØkbEl 407 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 610] , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh 8] , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1835 rFkk , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 225 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 473 foosfprA ¿ iSjk 12 rFkk 14
R.S. Garg, J. -- 1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Raheeman Bee has prayed that the detention order Annexure-P1 dated 4.5.1994 passed by the District Magistrate in relation to her son, Kasim alias Sheroo be quashed and that her son be released.
2. The brief facts leading to the detention order are that un 26.4.1994, Police Superintendent, Jabalpur (II respondent) submitted a report to the District Magistrate suggesting therein that detention order under section 3 (2) of the Act be passed against Kasim. The District Magistrate passed the order of detention. The report and grounds of detention refer to as many as eight grounds which are as under:
(a) That on 4.2.1991 at about 7.45 a.m. at Sanjeevani Nagar, Garha, detenu Kasim wrongfully restrained the complainant Jai Narayan, caused simple injury by knife and accused him. Accordingly, offence No. 89/90 was registered at Police Station, Garha, the accused was arrested, charge-sheet was filed against him and the matter was pending before the competent Court.
(b) On 6.2.1991 at about 8.30 a.m., the detenu was apprehended by the officer of Police Station, Garha as he was found in possession of a knife. Offence No. 92/91 was registered. The accused was arrested for having committed offence under section 25, Arms Act, charge-sheet was filed and the matter was pending before the competent Court.
(c) On 3.7.1991, the complainant J.N. Agarwal, resident of Lordganj made a report that from the front of his house No. 323, detenu Kasim committed theft of his scooter. On this offence No. 353/91 under section 379 IPC was registered against the detenu, he was arrested, the scooter was recovered from him, charge sheet was filed and the matter was pending before the competent Court.
(d) On report of Ram Krishan dated 5.4.1992, offence No. 23/93 under section 324/34, I.P.C. was registered stating therein that at about 6 p.m., detenu Kasim alongwith his friends caused him injury by razor. Accused was arrested, charge-sheet was prepared, filed and the matter was pending before the competent Court.
(e) On 11.4.1992, at about 6 p.m., accused Kasim and his friends wrongfully entered the house of the complainant Rahman Khan, abused and beat him. On this report Crime No. 224/92 under Sec. 294, 450, 506-B, 323/34, IPC was registered, the accused persons were arrested, after investigation charge-sheet was filed and the matter was pending before the competent Court.
(f) On report of Ram Krishna, Crime No. 252/92 under section 286, I.P.C. read with section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act was registered against the detenu. In the report, it was alleged that the accused threw the country made bombs and caused terror in the locality. Charge-sheet was filed and the accused was facing trial.
(g) On 2.6.1993 at about 6 a.m. in the morning, the detenu with his two friends threw country made bombs, caused terror in the locality and therefore offence No. 284/93 under section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act was registered, the detenu was arrested and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the trial was pending before the Competent Court.
(h) On Sunder made a report that on 3.6.1993 at mid-night, the detenu alongwith his friends forcibly entered the house of the complainant attacked Pyarelal and caused his death. On this report, offence No. 286/93 under sections 452, 307/34 and 302, I.P.C. was registered. It is alleged in the report of Superintendent of Police that the detenu Kasim could not be arrested as he was absconding and, therefore, charge-sheet was filed against him• under the provisions of section 299, Cr.P.C. Copy of the said report is filed with the return as Annexure-R1.
3. The petitioner states that the detenu surrendered at Police Station, Garha on 16.4.1994 as he was wanted in a Criminal case registered against him and was kept in unlawful custody till the date of passing of order of detention i.e. 4.5.1994. The petitioner says that sh
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
