Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (8) TMI 416

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etitioner: (i) the petitioner is alleged to have fired with his revolver at one Sri Azam with the intention to hill him but he narrowly escaped. As a result of this attack at 5.00 P.M. on 17. 12.1986, according to the detaining authority. terror spread over in the retire area and all the shopkeepers who had their shops in the nearby locality closed down their shops out of panic and fear. This incident created a public order problem. ; (ii) the petitioner- is said to have made another bid on 21.6. 1987 to kill another person named Aziz who also narrowly escaped and (iii) on 17.7. 1987. at about 7.45 P.M. the petitioner with this colleagues killed Shri Aziz in front of the Lucknow District Jail. The persons who were present there ran away ou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he High Court to have referred to the first two incidents. Besides, the order having been passed on account of the third incident which happened more than four months earlier ought to be set aside on the ground of undue delay alone. It was further said that the order was vitiated as the petitioner s bail application in the Criminal Court was not opposed by the State; and in any view the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction for detaining the petitioner with a view to frustrate the Criminal Court s order enlarging the petitioner on bail. Referring to the first information report about the July occurrence it was pointed out that 14 persons besides the petitioner were made accused in the case and the authority has illegally discriminated aga .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In any view the impugned order cannot be struck down on the ground that the second incident or for that matter both the first and the second incidents did not relate to disturbance of public order. 6. We also do not find any merit in the plea that the impugned order is bad on account of delay. It is true that the ground which led the District Magistrate to pass the detention order became available in July and the order was passed only in December but it is not right to assume that an order of detention has to be mechanically struck down if passed after some delay. (See K. Aruna Kumari v. Government of 1) Andhra Pradesh Ors.. [1988] 1 SCC 296 and the cases mentioned there) It is necessary to consider the circumstances in each individua .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of the fact that the witnesses of the incident appeared to be reluctant to support their earlier statements. The situation can be well appreciated as it is common knowledge that due to deteriorating law and order situation in the country and mounting aggressive intimidating postures of accused persons, witnesses are failing to summon courage in assisting the administration of justice by going before a court of law to state what they have seen or heard. 8. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the detention order was passed with a view to frustrate the bail allowed to the petitioner in the criminal case. Reliance was placed on the observations in Maledath Bharatman Malyuli v. The Commissioner of Police,AlR 1950 Bombay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and that of the others are not identical and the reasonable apprehension as to their future conduct must depend on the relevant facts, and circumstances which differ from individual to individual. It would have been wrong on the part of the detaining authority to take a uniform decision in this regard only on the ground that the persons concerned are all joined together as accused in a criminal case. 10. The plea of the petitioner that all the relevant materials were not placed before and considered by the District Magistrate is made in Vague terms and is not fit to be accepted. The detaining authority in his counter affidavit has denied the allegation and we see no reason to disbelieve him. The learned counsel further urged that the pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates