9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order based on the absence of the petitioner's name in the FIR and subsequent discharge in the criminal case. 2. Validity of the detention order given the nine-month interval between the criminal incidents and the detention order. 3. Whether the detention order is invalid for not specifying a period of detention. 4. Whether the acts imputed to the petitioner constitute a disturbance of public order. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Detention Order: The petitioner argued that the detention order was irrational and not bona fide because his name was not mentioned in the FIRs, and he was discharged in the criminal case due to a lack of evidence. The Court held that the jurisprudence on preventive detention allows for detention even if the accused has been discharged in a criminal case. The preventive branch of social defense aims to protect the community from future injury, and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to the 'subjective satisfaction' necessary for preventive detention. The Court found no malafide intention as the discharge was due to witnesses being too afraid to testify, and thus, the detention order was valid. 2. Validity of the Detention Order Given the Interval: The petitioner contended that the nine-month gap between the incidents and the detention order broke the credible chain required for preventive detention. The Court referred to previous judgments, stating that the interval's length and the nature of the acts must be considered. In this case, the acts were serious, involving bomb hurling and brick-bat throwing, and the petitioner's involvement was discovered during the investigation. The Court found that the detaining authority's satisfaction was valid and not a sham, thus rejecting the argument that the detention order was invalid due to the time gap. 3. Specification of the Period of Detention: The petitioner argued that the detention order was invalid as it did not specify a period of detention, violating Section 12 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The Court referred to previous rulings, including Suna Ullah v. State of J & K and Dattatraya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. State of Bombay, which held that it is not necessary for the detention order to specify a period. The Act allows for detention up to twelve months or until the expiry of the Defence of India Act, whichever is later. The Court found that the absence of a specified period does not invalidate the detention order. 4. Disturbance of Public Order: The petitioner claimed that the acts imputed to him were aimed at a particular person and did not constitute a disturbance of public order. The Court clarified that the nature of the act, its circumstances, and its impact on the public must be considered. Acts like bomb hurling in public places, even if aimed at an individual, can create public disorder by causing panic and terror among the general populace. The Court concluded that the petitioner's actions did disturb public order and thus justified the detention. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the detention order. The Court found that the preventive detention was valid despite the petitioner's discharge in the criminal case, the nine-month interval between the incidents and the detention order, the absence of a specified period in the detention order, and the nature of the acts constituting a disturbance of public order. The Court emphasized the importance of continuous review by the government to ensure the necessity of prolonged detention.
|
