Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 61 (ORI)

Sania Pradhan v. State of Orissa

2008-01-18

I.MAHANTY

body2008
JUDGMENT A. K. GANGULY, C.J. — This writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of detention dated 22.03.2007 passed by the District Magis¬trate, Ganjam, Chatrapur under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Alongwith the order of detention dated 22.03.2007, the grounds of detention were also served on the petitioner. There are various grounds in support of the order of detention. 2. The petitioner has not challenged the detention on merit, but has essentially assailed the same on the following recitals made in the grounds of detention. “While in jail custody you have applied for bail and Registrar, Civil and Sessions Court has directed the OIC, B.Sadar PS to send the case record in B.Sadar P.S.Case No. 14/07 vide letter No. 1506 dtd. 14.2.07 (Annexure XXVIII).” 3. Relying upon the aforesaid recital in the grounds of detention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority has arrived at his satisfaction for the need of detaining the petitioner even when he is in custody on the basis of the fact that the petitioner has applied for bail in B.Sadar P.S.Case No. 14 dt. 23.1.2007 under Sections 341/294/307/506/34/R/W/ Section 25 Arms Act. But there is no recording of satisfaction by the detaining authority that the petitioner is “likely to be released on bail” in connection with that case. 4. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it would be clear that after the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner, he made a representation to the State Government in the Home Department on 16.4.2007 which was rejected by order dated 1.5.2007 and communicated to the petitioner. 5. In the grounds of detention there is no recital to show that the petitioner while in jail had applied for bail and there was every likelihood that he may come out in bail and will in¬dulge in criminal activities thereby affecting the public order and disturbing the normal life in the locality. 5. In the grounds of detention there is no recital to show that the petitioner while in jail had applied for bail and there was every likelihood that he may come out in bail and will in¬dulge in criminal activities thereby affecting the public order and disturbing the normal life in the locality. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in cases where the detenu is already in custody there must be recital in the grounds of deten¬tion that the detenu’s bail application is likely to succeed and where the vital link being “the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, on the likelihood of the detenu being re¬leased on bail” is missing, the order of detention suffers from serious infirmity. In the case at hand, no such satisfaction of the detaining authority is shown any where in the grounds of detention. In the absence of such requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority the order of detention cannot be sustained, and the same deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court quashes the impugned order of detention 22.3.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam, Chatrapur as well as the grounds of detention dated 22.3.2007 under Annexure-1 and directs that the petitioner, namely, Sania Pradhan be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is no longer required in connection with any other case. 7. The Habeas Corpus petition is thus, allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.