ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 296 of 1989. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
U.R. Lalit, Mrs. Rani Chhabra and Ms. Meera Chhiba for the Petitioner.
B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General, Yogeshwar Pd., Ms. Sucharita, Ms. A Subhashini, Dalveer Bhandari, Ms. Rachna Joshi and Rachna Gupta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DUTT, J. In this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the mother of the detenu, Shri Praveen Kumar Gupta, has prayed for the quashing of the detention order of her son dated May 6, 1989 passed under subsection (2) read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, as confirmed by the order dated May 11, 1989 of the State of U.P. on the report of the Advisory Board. There is also a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release the said Praveen Kumar Gupta forthwith.
The grounds of detention, as communicated to the detenu by the District Magistrate, Meerut, are as follows:
"That on 30.4.89 at about 9.15 P.M. at Delhi
Road, Kesarganj, P.S. Delhi Gate, Meerut, you
along with your other accomplice with the
common intention to kill Babli showing your
wrath gave him a gun injury and also threat-
ened to give gun shot to those persons who
came in his rescue. On the basis of informa-
tion given by Mohd. Bhura a Crime Case No. 12
1 was registered against you u/s 307 IPC in
P.S. Delhi Gate, Meerut, which is pending. By
your above misdeed fear and terror was spread
in the hearts of public in the markets, Mela
Manchandi and in the city of Meerut. Thus you
have committed an act which is prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order.
You are at present in jail and are
trying to be released on bail and there is
every possibility of releasing you on bail.
On the basis of above grounds and
reasons 1 am satisfied that you are likely to
indulge in the activities prejudicial to the
public order and public life and with a view
to prevent you from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the public order and public
life, it has become necessary to detain you."
It is apparent from the grounds of detention that a crime case was registered against him under section 307 IPC and he was arrested and detained in jail.
Along with the grounds of detention, a copy of the report of the Inspector-in-Charge, P.S. Delhi Gate, Meerut, was also supplied to the detenu in jail. The relevant portion of the report is extracted below:
"On 30.4.89 at busy road (Delhi Road) at about
21.15 P.M. he without any reasons gave a gun
shot to one Babli S/o Sh. Bhura R/o Mohalla
Purwa Hamidnagar who had come for reading
Namaz, as a result of which he was seriously
injured. At present he is in serious condition
in the hospital. This site is the most sensi-
tive area of the city for communal point of
view. On receiving the information of the gun
injury to Babli by the Muslim community on the
pious occasion of Ramzan there spread great
excitement. Thousands of people from community
gathered. There was
an apprehension of communal threat in the city
and area. People closed their shops feeling
threat of communal riots and the road became
quiet due to fear and terror. Above all, on
receiving the news of this incident the people
of famous Manchandi Mela started running to
their houses. This news of fear and terror
created due to this incident was also pub-
lished in the newspaper Amar Ujala on 1.5.89.
Sh. Bhura S/o Dilsad R/o 29, Purwa Hamid
Hussain got lodged one report in the Police
Station Delhi Gate and a Crime Case No. 12 1
of 89 under section 307 IPC is pending consid-
eration. Sh. Praveen Kumar is in jail for
commission of this offence.
Praveen Kumar has given application
for bail in the above matter and there is
every possibility of his release on bail. He
is a man of strong means. After release on
bail he would again commit such serious act
which would be prejudicial to communal harmony
and cause adverse reaction in general public
especially in Muslim community.
Therefore the detention under Na-
tional Security Act is recommended to above
Praveen."
At this stage, it may be mentioned that the detenu has since been granted bail, but in view of the order of detention, he is not released. Mr. Lalit, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has strongly urged that as the grounds of detention does not disclose any past history of commission of any crime by the detenu and the incident that has been referred to in the grounds being the solitary incident and there having been no materials on record to show that such an incident would be repeated in future, the order of detention is illegal and should be quashed. Counsel submits that the only ground on which the detaining authority had placed.reliance for making the order of detention was that there ’was a chance of the detenu being released on bail by the criminal court and, in that event, it was apprehended that he would act prejudicially to the interest of public order. It is submitted that such apprehension is not supported by any material on record and, accordingly, the detention order should be quashed.
In support of the above contention, learned Counsel has placed much reliance upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and others, [1988] 1 SCC 436. In that case, this Court observed as follows:
"Every citizen in this country has the right
to have recourse to law. He has the right to
move the court for bail when he is arrested
under the ordinary law of the land. If the
State thinks that he does not deserve bail the
State could oppose the grant of bail. He
cannot, however, be interdicted from moving
the court for bail by clamping an order of
detention. The possibility of the court grant-
ing bail may not be sufficient. Nor a bald
statement that the person would repeat his
criminal activities would be enough. There
must also be credible information or cogent
reasons apparent on the record that the dete-
nu, if enlarged on bail, would act prejudi-
cially to the interest of public order."
In laying down the above proposition of law, this Court has placed reliance upon its two earlier decisions in Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, [1983] 3 SCR 939 and in Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, [1985] 4 SCC 232.
It is true that the incident on April 13, 1989 was a solitary one so far as the detenu was concerned, but the question is whether the incident had prejudicially affected the public order. In other words, whether it had affected the even tempo of life of the community. As observed in Alijan Mian’s case (supra), it is for the detaining authority to have the subjective satisfaction about the apprehension of the breach of the public order and that even one incident may be sufficient to satisfy the detaining authority in that regard depending upon the nature of the incident. It is not disputed by Mr. Lalit that a single incident may disturb the tranquility and the even tempo of life of the community.
In the grounds of detention, it has been stated "By your above misdeed, fear and terror was spread in the hearts of public in the markets, Mela Manchandi and in the city of Meerut. Thus you have committed an act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order." This is not a mere bald statement of the detaining authority without any material in support of the same. We have already extracted above the report of the Inspector-in-Charge, P.S. Delhi Gate, Meerut, which has been taken into account by the detaining authority at the time he passed the order of detention. It has been already noticed that a copy of the said report was served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention. A situation that emerged as a result of the incident, as stated in the said report, was grave and serious and prejudicially affected public order. It may be a solitary incident, but it gave rise to communal tension and there was apprehension of a communal riot as alleged in the report. The report, in our opinion, is a sufficient material for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that there was disturbance of ,tranquility and harmony of public life.
It is not correct to say that there is no material for the apprehension that if released on bail, the detenu will indulge in such criminal acts affecting public order. Really, the detaining authority had taken into consideration all the circumstances including the! grave and serious situation that emerged as a result of the incident. In our opinion, when an incident was such that it created communal tension and the authorities were apprehensive of the breaking of a communal riot, such incident in itself may be sufficient and may afford justification for the satisfaction of the detaining authority for the detention of the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activity prejudicial to public order even though, as submitted by the learned Counsel, there is no antecedent acts of similar nature or past history of commission of crime by the detenu. In this connection, we may refer to a recent decision of this Court in Ayya v. State of U.P. and Another, [1989] 1 SCC 374. In that case, this Court observed as follows:
"Even a single instance of activity tending to
harm "public order" might, in the circum-
stances of its commission, reasonably supply
justification for the satisfaction as to a
legislative apprehension of a future repeti-
tion of similar activity to the detriment of
"public order"."
The above observation fully supports the view we have taken. In our opinion, there were cogent reasons apparent on the face of the record justifying the order of detention.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that the detention of the petitioner was justified. The rule nisi is discharged and the writ petition is dismissed. N.P.V. Petition dismissed.