GANGA PRASAD DUBEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — 1989 DIGILAW 959 (ALL)

GIRIDHAR MALVIYA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER Ganga Prasad Dubey was detained by an order dated 14. 3. 1989 passed under Section 3 (2) of N. S. A. by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. According to ground of detention furnished to him, the petitioner along with his associates on 18th October, 1988 had stopped the scooters of Prabhu Dayal Arora and sharad Kumar Srivastava and had looted Rs. 4 lacs from the Diggi of Prabhu Dayal Aroras scooter and Rs. 2. 50,000/- from the Diggi of Sharad Kumar Srivastava after firing upon Ptabhu Dayal Arora who later on died in the hospital. One Babu Lal waa also injured in the afore said firing. The FIR. without naming any person was registered at Colonel Ganj Police station, Allahabad as crime No. 885 of 1988 under Sections 3941302 I. P. C. Later on the case was converted under section 396 I. P. C. During the investigation, the complicity of 7 persons was found in this incident including that of the petitioner, who was arrested on 28th December 1988. On his arrest, the Petitioner admitted that in the loot resulting in the murder of Prabhu Dayal Arora he had got a share of Rs. 75,000/-, out of which he had deposited Rs. 25,000/- in the State Bank of India, Manauri in his name, Rs. 8600/- in the Bank of Baroda, Nawada Branch, in the name of his son and that he had given Rs. 10,000/- each to co-accused Gyan Roop Dwivedi and Pappu Singh. He further admitted that he bad deposited Rs. 25,000/- in the Nawada Branch in his name and Rs. 15,000/- in the State Bank of India, Sulem Sarai Branch in his name. Rest of the money was admitted to have seen spent by him in purchasing bicycle and clothes of his children etc. The petitioner also disclosed that out of loot of 6 lacs Rs. 50,060/- were spent for purchasing car for the Gang. The petitioner was put for identification on 3vt January, 1989. The witnesses identified him infront of the Magistrate. After investigation had been completed, charge- sheet in the above mentioned case had been submitted. The incident had happened in a very thickly populated locality and the people were terrorised. There was also sense of insecurity in the people. The petitioner was put for identification on 3vt January, 1989. The witnesses identified him infront of the Magistrate. After investigation had been completed, charge- sheet in the above mentioned case had been submitted. The incident had happened in a very thickly populated locality and the people were terrorised. There was also sense of insecurity in the people. The business community was badly dis-Satisfied and Vyapar Maildal also decided to observe closer in the Muthiganj market on 19th October, 1988. Even the normal life of community had been disturbed and public order had also been disturbed on account of the said incident It was further mentioned that the petitioner was detained in Naini Central Jail, Allahabad but there was apprehension that he would soon be released on bail. On being satisfied that after his release from Jail, the petitioner was likely to indulge in similar activities again, which might have affected the maintenance of public order, the detention order was passed against him by the detaining authority. The present petition was med challenging the detention of the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid order. The petitioner had also med supplementary affidavit. On the notice being issued, counter-affidavits on behalf of the detaining authority, State Government and the Central Government were med. The petitioner also filed rejoinder-affidavit. ( 2 ) WE have heard Shri R. A. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Shri Prem Prakash, learned Additional Government Advocate and Shri Shrish Chandra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government in this case. ( 3 ) SHRI R. A. Misra contended that the activities mentioned in the detention order do not relate to public order but were only the activities confined to problems of law and order. It is not possible to accept this contention. If a person by forming a gang was looting persons, who were going to make deposits in the Bank, their activity was clearly one which was going to affect the even tempo of life of the community as the people would feel in secured that at any point of time, they may become victims of such a gang. The contention of the petitioner that the ground does not raise a problem of public order, is not correct, and is to be rejected. The contention of the petitioner that the ground does not raise a problem of public order, is not correct, and is to be rejected. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that the real object of the detention order was to nullify the effect of bail, which the petitioner was likely to get. According to the learned counsel, the satisfaction of the detaining authority alleged to be based on the grounds of detention was not real as the real ground for detaining the petitioner was that he was being released on bail. This contention too is devoid of merit. We have found that the past activity of the petitioner was likely to affect the maintenance of public order. What the detention order means to say is that in future also it was only after the petitioner got released on bail that the necessity to prevent him to act in similar manner arose. Consequently the awareness of the detaining authority shown in the order of detention to the effect that the petitioner was in jail and was likely to come out of it cannot mean that the order of detention was passed to nullify the effect of the bail order. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relying on paragraph nos. 24, 25 and 26 of the petition next contended that a detention order had also been passed under N. S. A. against a co-accused of the petitioner in crime no. 885 of 1988 by the district Magistrate, Allahabad on the basis of his involvement in the said crime no. 885 of 88; It is alleged that as the order of detention against Shyam Behari was not approved by the Advisory Board, the detention of the petitioner should also be held to be bad. However, in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit of Shri Harish Chandra Chaudhary, it has been asserted that the to detention order against Shyam Behari was not based on his activities relating to Crime no. 885 of 1988 but on the basis of an incident of firing alleged to be made on the police party; Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to assert that even in that case, the detention of the petitioner should be treated to be bad in the eyes of law, as according to him if the incident of the present case in crime no. 885 of 88 could give rise to the detention of the petitioner that ground was also available against co-accused Shyam Behari, and Shyam Beharis detention order should also have been based on that ground. Shyam Beharis detention order has not been placed before this Court. Moreover, as stated in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit mentioned above, the detention order against Shyam Behari was based on his involvement in a separate incident. If the detention order of Shyam Behari was not approved by the Advisory Board that can have no effect on the order of the detention against the petitioner. Apart from that, neither the date of detention of Shyam Behari has been disclosed nor is it asserted that the detention order of Shyam Behari was passed after complicity of the petitioner and his associates had come to light in crime no. 885 of 89 giving rise to the detention order of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner cannot get any benefit from the fact that the detention order under S. S. A. against Shyam Behari was not approved by the Advisory Board. ( 6 ) IT was then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not named in the first information report and since the statements of the witnesses who had identified the petitioner as also since the copy of the pass books of the Savings Bank Accounts, which the petitioner bad opened for depositing the booty coupled with the copy of the statement of co-accused were not furnished to him he was deprived of his right to make an effective representation. What is relevant in this regard is that the petitioner had himself admitted his complicity in this case and had given the number of the bank account etc. , which had been mentioned in the detention order. The petitioner had never earlier asked for any further particulars from the detaining authority alleging that in the absence of such particulars, he would be deprived of his right to make an effective representation. It cannot be said that in the absence of these documents, the satisfaction of the detaining authority about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime was not justified or that the alleged incident could not be made the basis of the detention order against the petitioner by the detaining authority. It cannot be said that in the absence of these documents, the satisfaction of the detaining authority about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime was not justified or that the alleged incident could not be made the basis of the detention order against the petitioner by the detaining authority. In view of the fact that the petitioner has never earlier demanded any such documents or material, he cannot be permitted to raise this plea at this belated stage in the present-habeas corpus petition. In this respect it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan (on page 545): if the detenu wanted any more particulars such as the name of the intelligence officer or other information, he could have well asked for the particulars before making his representation. That he never did. It was not as if any privilege had been claimed by the Government in respect of the intelligence reports. In fact, we find that the intelligence reports were produced before the learned Judges of the High Court at the hearing of the Writ petition there. There was no complaint before us that the detenu or his counsel wanted to peruse the reports and were denied the opportunity of doing so. We do not think that the detenu could be said to have been denied a reasonable opportunity of framing a representation merely because particulars which he never desired, in respect of a ground which was not vague were not furnished to him. We are unable to see any force in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of the detenu. Consequently even this ground of the petitioner is not sustainable. ( 7 ) IN the end, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners continued detention was bad as there was considerable delay in the disposal of his representation, both by the State Government as also by the Central Government. In this connection, we find that the petitioner made a representation against his detention order on 3vt March, 1989. This representation was received by the District Magistrate, Allahabad on April 1,1989. Second was the holiday. The representation was sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad for his comments on 3rd April, 1989. In this connection, we find that the petitioner made a representation against his detention order on 3vt March, 1989. This representation was received by the District Magistrate, Allahabad on April 1,1989. Second was the holiday. The representation was sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad for his comments on 3rd April, 1989. The senior Superintendent of Police had to send the representation to the police station through the Circle Officer and after the concerned police Station and the Circle Officer prepared their comments then the representation along with the report of police station was received back in the office of the District Magistrate on 7th April, 89, 8th and gth April, were again holidays. On the 10th April, 1989, the representation was sent to Lucknow with a covering letter of the District Magistrate and was received by the State Government on 11th April, 89. The State Government forwarded one representation to the Union of India. Thereafter the representation was examined in the concerned section which prepared a detailed note upon it The representation was put up before the Joint Secretary Home. The Joint Secretary Home and Special Secretary Home examined the representation and forwarded it to the Government with their notes and the State of UP. , on 14th April, 1989 rejected the representation of the petitioner. The representation sent to the Central Government was received by the Central Government on 12th April, 1989. On 13th April, 89 itself the Central Government called some more information on the representation of the State Government. This information was received back by the Central Government on 20th April, 1989. Thereafter the representation was finally rejected by the Central Government on 25th April,89. A persual of these dates itself would indicate that there was absolutely no delay on the part either of the State Government or Central Govt. in the disposal of the representation made by the petitioner. Consequently this ground also fails. ( 8 ) AS none of the Points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are sustainable, there IS no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.-Petition dismissed .