High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Virendra Singh v. Superintendent District Jail Gorakhupur And Others - HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 32771 of 2006  RD-AH 881 (12 January 2007)
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 32771 of 2006
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
The petitioner has been detained under section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, under the order of the District Magistrate, Maharajganj dated 24.3.2006. Copy of the said order is enclosed as Annexure 1 and a copy of the grounds of detention are enclosed as Annexure 2 to this writ petition. The petitioner was already in jail since 9.2.2006. A sentence of paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate Sri Deepak Agrawal has been relied upon heavily from the petitioner's side. The said sentence contains a typing error.
The sentence reads as follows:-
" The copy of the bail application was not placed before the District Magistrate but the same was also served upon the petitioner through the jail authorities".
In our considered opinion, the use of the underlined word "also" used in the above sentence clearly indicate that the word "only" was left out of typing by inadvertence and the sentence was intended to read as follows:-
"The copy of the bail application was not only placed before the District Magistrate but the same was also served upon the petitioner......"
Further, Annexure 3 to the writ petition is a report of the S.H.O. (Police). The last enclosure in that report is a photo copy of the bail application. Annexure 5 is a letter dated 19.3.2006 by the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate sponsoring the case for preventive detention. This letter also mentions the enclosure of bail application at item No. 29.Therefore, the first argument of the petitioner that the bail application was not placed before the District Magistrate fails.
According to the counter affidavit of the Central Government, the representation of the petitioner dated 1.4.2006 against his detention under the National Security Act, 1980, was received from the State Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Central Government on 19.4.2006. It was placed before the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home on 22.5.2006 i.e., after more than one month. It appears from the counter affidavit that during this one month, the Central Government was doing nothing except waiting for the report of the Advisory Board, which had been called for in some other similar case. Not even a reminder was sent by the Central Government during this period of more than one month. Ultimately, the matter was processed without receiving the report of the Advisory Board.
This delay of more than a month has not been explained at all by the Central Government. If some explanation had been given about some movement having taken place at he level of the Central Government in processing the representation of the petitioner, the sufficiency of that may have been considered by this Court but when no explanation is offered, we are of the opinion that the further detention of the petitioner becomes unjustified due to delay in disposal of the representation.
We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct that the petitioner will not be detained further pursuant to the preventive detention order dated 24.3.2006 (Annexure 1 to this writ petition) and will be set at liberty unless wanted in connection with some other matter.
Dated : January 12, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.