9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Detenu's representation not considered by the Government. 2. Grounds furnished to the detenu mentioned offenses under the Indian Penal Code. 3. Grounds not related to the maintenance of public order. Analysis: Issue 1: Detenu's representation not considered by the Government The detenu, detained under the Preventive Detention Act, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking release. The detenu's representation was not considered by the Government before the matter was brought before the Advisory Board. The detenu made representations after the Advisory Board had already opined on the necessity of detention. The Court found that the detenu's representation merely stated the grounds were false and requested to be produced before the Advisory Board for release. The Court held that there was no breach of the Act as the detenu did not make a representation before the Advisory Board dealt with the matter. The State Government was in the process of dealing with the representation when the Court intervened. Issue 2: Grounds furnished mentioning offenses under the Indian Penal Code The grounds of detention mentioned offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including rioting and assault. The detenu, along with associates, committed acts endangering public order by using deadly weapons and attacking individuals. The Court emphasized that for an act to affect public order, it must affect the community at large, not just specific individuals. The Court analyzed each ground of detention, noting that the detenu's actions were aimed at terrorizing the locality and disrupting law and order. The Court held that the Commissioner of Police was justified in concluding that the detenu posed a threat to public order based on the grounds furnished, even though they related to offenses under the Indian Penal Code. Issue 3: Grounds not related to the maintenance of public order The Court distinguished between acts affecting public order and those affecting individual peace. The grounds provided against the detenu demonstrated a clear intent to disrupt public order by endangering human lives and obstructing law enforcement officers. The Court concluded that the detenu's actions were aimed at creating fear in the locality and disrupting the normal functioning of law and order machinery. The Court held that the grounds, though related to offenses under the Indian Penal Code, were relevant to the maintenance of public order and justified the detenu's preventive detention. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition as it found no breach of the Act in considering the detenu's representation and upheld the detention based on the grounds furnished, which were deemed relevant to the maintenance of public order.
|
