ANAND PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                               ANAND PRAKASH
                                      v.
                                                                                   A
                            STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                                DECEMBER 14, 1989

                     [B.C. RAY AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]                              B

               National Security Act, 1980: S. 8-Detenu likely to be released on
        bail in criminal proceedings-Preventive detention of-Whether per-
        missible-Detaining authority's satisfaction must be based on credible
        information-Inordinate delay in making detention order-Whether
        vitzaces the order.
                                                                                   c
              The detenu was arrested on May 2, 1989. On the same date a bail

l
-t
        application was moved on his behalf. On May 3, 1989 he was detained
        under s. 8 ofihe National Security Act, 1980. The detention order stated
        that the detenu was likely to be bailed out and there was every likeli-
        hood that after coming out of jail he would again indulge in criminal D
        activities injurious to the maintenance of essential services and supplies
        required for public life. The facts referred to in the grounds of deten-
        tion were that on the basis of a complaint of theft of electric wire lodged
        on February IS, 1989 an FIR was registered under s. 379 IPC against
        three persons, 'J', 'S' and 'M'. Some of the stolen material was
        recovered from the house of 'J' on March 3, 1989 and on the informa- E
        tion provided by him about the purchase of such material the factory of
        the detenu was raided on the same day. There 'M', stated to be the
        servant of the detenu, was found in possession of about 20 kg. of melted
        electric wire and that was seized under a recovery memo. In the confes-
        sional statement made by 'M' and recorded in the recovery memo itself,
        he had stated that he had purchased the electric wire from 'J' and 'S' F
        and that he had melted and sold the same to the detenu. These facts led
        the detaining authority to conclude that there was inherent criminal
        propensity in the detenu. Detenu's representation was rejected by the·
        Advisory Board. The Order was confirmed by the Government under
        s. 12(1) of the Act.
                                                                                    G
               In the writ petition seeking to quash the order of detention, it was
    "   contended that there was no evidence of detenu's complicity with the
        crime linking him with the recovery of melted wire, that the criminal
        case tiled nnder s. 411 IPC was the first crime alle~ed against him, that
        he had no past criminal record from which it could be inferred that .he
        was likely to indulge in such activity in future, and that there W?S an H

                                          479

''
    480           SUPREME COURT REPORTS              I1989) Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A   unexplained delay from the date of the alleged crime and the date of
    detention vitiating the satisfaction and the detention order itself.

            Allowing the writ petition, the Court,

          HELD: I. The detaining authority though can take into account
B   the possibility of the detenu being released on hail in the criminal
    proceedings, have to he satisfied, having regard to his past activities or
    by reason of the credible information or cogent reasons, that if he is
    enlarged on bail, he would indulge in such criminal activities. [487B)

        In the instant case, except the bald statement that the detenu
  would repeat his criminal activities after coming out of the jail, there
c were no credible information or material or cogent reasons apparent on
  the record to warrant an inference that the detenu if enlarged on bail
  would indulge in such criminal activities which were prejudicial to the
  maintenance of essential services. There must be something more than
  what was found in the record to come to the conclusion that this was not
D a case of solitary incident but a case of the detenu indulging in business
  of receiving stolen electric wires. Furthermore, the detention order
  seems to have been made in order to supplant the criminal prosecution
  which was not permitted. [487B-D)

         Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, [1985) 4 SCC 232;
E Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr., [1964) 4
  SCR 921; Karlie Chandra Guha v. _The State of West Bengal & Ors.,
  [1975) 3 SCC 490; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad & Ors.,
  [1983) 4 SCC 301; Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1988)
  l SCC 436 and N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr.,
  [1989) 4 sec 418, referred to.
F
         2. In spite of the fact that the recovery statement itself was made
  as early as on March 3, 1989 no action was taken against the detenu till
  May 3, 1989. Nothing more was stated in the detention order. The delay
  had also not been satisfactorily explained in the counter statement of the
  respondents. The ground therefore, could not be a proximate cause for
G a sudden decision to take action under the National Security Act and           »
  this also vitiates the order. [487F-G)

            ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 353 of
    1989.

H           {Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia).

                                                                                 !
,,
...          ANAND PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. [V. RAMASWAMI, J.]              481

            P.K. Chatterjee and R.P. Gupta for the Petitioner.
                                                                                   A
           Prithvi Raj, Dalveer Bhandari and Prashant Choudhary for the
      Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                   B
             V. RAMASW AMI, J. This writ petition has been filed under
      Article 32 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of
      certiorari to quash the order of detention dated 3.5.1989 passed by the
      District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, U .P. as confirmed by the Govern-
      ment of U .P. in their order dated 20.6.1989 detaining one Lakhmi
      Cliand Gupta under the National Security Act and to issue a writ of
      habeas corpus releasing the said detenu from such detention. The             c
      order of detention was made under section 8 of the National Security
      Act, 1980 by the District Magistrate on the. ground that with a view to
      prevent the detenu from indulging in unjawful activities which are
      prejudicial to the maintenance of essential services and supplies
      required for public life it was necessary to keep 'him under detention.      D
      The detenu made his representation to the Advisory Board. On
      receipt of the report of the Advisory Board to the effect that in its
      opinion there are sufficient grounds for detention, the Government
      after a consideration of the report confirmed the order of detention
      under section 12(.J) of the Act and directed that the said Lakhmi
      Chand Gupta be detained for a period of 12 months from 3.5.1989 the          E
      date of detention order. This writ petition for habeas corpus has been
      filed by the brother-in-law of the detenu.

            The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are
      absolutely no grounds or basis on which the detaining authority could
 \    have satisfied himself that the detenu had been engaged in criminal          F
      activities which are injurious to the maintenance of essential services
      and supplies required for public life or that the detenu is likely to
 <    indulge in any such activity in future. Secondly, there is an unexp-
      lained delay from the date of the alleged incident or crime and the date
      of detention vitiating the satisfaction and the detention order itself.
      The circumstances referred to in the order of detention does not lead        G
      to nor there was anything on which the District Magistrate can come to
      a conclusion that there is inherent criminal propensity in the detenu
      which couid lead the District Magistrate to infer that there is every
      likelihood of the detenu repeating the alleged unlawful activity.

            The facts relating to the incident which is referred to in the order   H
 '
    482         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A of detention as the ground for detention are as followws: On the 15th
  of February, 1989 the Junior Engineer, Tubewell Electrification Sub-
  Division, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur lodged a complaint with the
  Station House Officer, Police Station Chhibranau, Distt. Farrukhabad
  that electric wires to a length of about 2900 mtrs. in 11 K.V. Visya
  Bank Feeder had been cut and stolen away on 14.2.1989 by some
B unknown persons and that the value of the loss to the Electricity Board
  amounted to Rs.21,500. This F.l.R. was reigstered as Crime Case No.
  51 of 1989 under section 379 IPC in the said Police Station and it was
  shown therein that three persons, namely, Jagdish, Santosh and
  Munshi Sharma were the accused. Santosh is the brother of Jagdish.
  On the 3rd of March, 1989 the house of Jagdish was raided and two
  bags filled with stolen alnminium electric wire recovered. Jagdish gave
C an Information that a person at Vishnugarh Road claiming himself to
  be a resident of Delhi used to purchase stolen electric wire from the
  person cutting the electric wire stealthily. On this information of
  Jagdish the factory of the detenu at Vishnugarh Road was raided. One
  Munshi Sharma who is stated to be the servant of the detenu was found
D in possession of about 20 k.g. of melted electric wire and that was
  seized from him under a recovery memo. The order of detention stated
  that Munshi Sharma had confessed that the stolen electric wire had
  been purchased by him from Jagdish and Santosh. The detenu was
  arrested on the 2nd of May, 1989. On the same date the bail applica-
  tion was moved on behalf of the accused. After setting ciut this inci-
E dent the grounds of detention stated:

               "This act on your part has disrupted the electric system
               resulting in non-operation of tubewells, dearth of water for
               crops, non-supply of drinking water for general public and
               cattle. This unlawful act of yours and that of your accomp-
F              lices is against the maintenance of essential services and
               supplies required for public order and life. This act of yours
               have caused injury to the national economy and created
               teror in the general pubiic and poses a serious threat to the
               public life."

G   The order of detention further stated:

               "At present you are detained in the District Jail of
               Fatehgarh in connection with case No. 51/89 under section
               379/411of1.P.C. and in the P.S. Chhibranau in connection
               with case No. 56/89 under section 379 of l.P.C and your
H              well wishers and sympathisers are trying to get you bailed
       ANAND PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. IV. RAMASWAMI, J.]            483

           out in the aforesaid cases and a bail application in this
                                                                           A
           behalf has already been moved in the court and you are
           likely to be bailed out. There is every likelihood that after
           coming out of jail you will again indulge in your criminal
           activities."

It is on the basis of this the order stated that the detaining authority   B
was satisfied that the detenu had been engaged in criminal activities
injurious to the maintenance of essential services and supplies
required for public life and that with a view to prevent him from
indulging in such unlawful acuvities it has become necessary to keep
him under detention.

      The learned counsel contended that the detenu had no past cri- c
minal record. The present criminal case filed under section 411 of
I.P.C. is the first crime which had been alleged against him. The
learned counsel further contended that there is absolutely no evidence
of detenu's complicity with the crime and making link of the detenu
with the recovery of 20 k.g. of melted wire recovered from Munshi D
Sharma at the behest of Jagdish. In this connection he also contended
that the statement said to have been made by Munshi Sharma had not
been supplied to him and that would also vitiate the order of deten-
tion. In the counter affidavit filed in this Court the respondent stated
that there was no separate confessional statement recorded from
Munshi Sharma and the confessional statement referred to in the E
detention order is the one that is found in the recovery memo a copy of
which had already been supplied to the detenu. The learned counsel
for the petitioner drew our attention to the recovery memo and con-
tended that if the statement of Munshi Sharma in the recovery memo is
the only material available that cannot be a basis of satisfaction for an
order of detention under the National Security Act. The statement of F
Munshi Sharma relied on by the detaining authority and found in the
recovery memo reads as follows:

           "When the gauge of that melted wire was measured it was
           found that of the Government wire, therefore, the said
           melted wire weighing 20 k.g. was•taken in the possession of G
           police and thoroughly sealed in a sack. But before sealing
           the same a separate specimen of melted wire and the speci-
           men of wire ·were taken and the specimens were sealed.
           The accused Munshi Sharma on his being arrested stated
           that he had purchased that property from both Santosh i.e
           the brother of Ja~dish and Jagdish, he further stated that H
    484        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

               he melted and sold the same to Lakhmi i.e. the owner of
A
               the said factory. The said property after being melted can-
               not be identified and it is used for making utensils
               thereafter."

   In this statement it may be seen that Munshi Sharma did not say that
B he purchased the stolen wire for the detenu or on the instructions of
  the detenu. In fact he did not even say that he is the servant or agent of
  the detenu. He had merely stated that 20 k.g. of melted wire recovered
  from him wa.s purchased by him from Santosh and his brother Jagdish
  and that he had melted and sold the same to the detenu. After it is
  melted in the melted form it could not be dis.tinguished from any other
c melted    wire of legal origin. The statement also does not impute
  knowledge on the part of the detenu that the same was from stolen
  wires. In any case it was not possible to say on the basis of this state-
  ment that the detenu was in leaJ:ue with other persons in the activity of
   stealing wire or purchasing of the same. ln fact it is not known how
   from the melted wire weighing 20 k.g. the detaining authority or the
D investigating officers came to the conclusion that the gauge of the
  melted wire was found to be that of Government wire. Again only 20
  k.g. was found in the factory and that too in the possession of Munshi
  Sharma though inside the factory. The statement of Munshi Sharma in
   the recovery memo and melted wire recovered from Sharma were the'
  only material available before the detaining authority. In the light of
E the absence of past criminal history on the part of the detenu we have
   no doubt that the statement found in the recovery memo could not
   form basis of satisfaction for the detention.

          The learned counsel took strong exception to the view of the
    detaining authority that the detenu is likely to get bail and there is
F   every likelihood that after coming out of jail the detenu will ag_ain
    indulge in criminal activities and that, therfore, it is necessary to
    detain him. In this connection he relied on the decision of this Court in
    Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, [1985] 4 SCC 232 where it
    was held th'at merely on such apprehension a detention order under
    National Security Act, 1980 should not ordinarily be passed. This
G   Court observed:

                "On a reading of the grounds particularly the paragraph
                which we have extracted above, it is clear that the order of
                detention was passed as the detaining authority was
                apprehensive that in case the detenu was released on bail
H               he would again carry on his criminal activities in the area. If
       ANAND PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. [V. RAMASWAMI, J.]            485

           the apprehension of the detaining authority was true, the
                                                                           A
           bail application had to be opposed and in case bail was
           granted challenge against that order in the higher forum
           had to be raised. Merely on the ground that an accused in
           detention as an undertrial prisoner was likely to get bail an
           order of detention under the National Security Act should
           not ordinarily be passed. We are inclined to agree with         B
           counsel for the petitioner that the order of detention in the
           citcumstances is not sustainable and is contrary to the well
           settled principles indicated by this Court in series of cases
           relating to preventive detentio'n. The impugned order,
           therefore, has to be quashed."

      This Court had considered in a n·umber of cases the validity of      c
orders of detention made when a person is in jail custody but the
detaining authority considered the likelihood of the detenu getting a
bail and in that view proceeding to consider the necessity for detaining
him under the preventive detention proceedings. In Rameshwar Shaw
v. District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr., [1964] 4 SCR 921 their Lord-       D
ships observed:

           "On the other hand, if a person who is undergoing impri-
           sonment, for a very short period, say for a month or two or
           so, and it is known that he would soon be released from
           jail, it may be possible for the authority to consider the      E
           antecedent history of the said person and decide whether
           the detention of the said person would be necessary after
           he is released from jail, and if the authority is bona fide
           satisfied that such detention is necessary, he can make a
           valid order of detention a few days before the person is
           likely to be released. The antecedent history and the past      F
           conduct" on which the order of detention would be based
           would, in such a case, be proximate in point of time and
           would-have a rational connection with the conclusion
           drawn by the authority that the detention of the person
           after his release is necessary."
                                                                           G
      In Karlie Chandra Guha v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.,
[1975] 3 sec 490 the order of detention stated that having regard to
the activities of the detenu, as discussed in the grounds of detention,
and having regard to the possibility of his being enlarged on bail the
detaining authority was satisfied that the detehu should be detained
under the Act. This order was upheld on the ground "the District           H
    486         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A Magistrate on information received by him thought that the petitioner
    was likely to be released on bail in which case having regard to his past
    activities it was open to the District Magistrate to come to the reason-
    able conclusion that having regard to the desperate nature of the acti-
    viiies of the _petitioner his enlargement on bail would be no deterrent to
    his desperate activities."
B
          In Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad and Others,
    [1983] 4 sec 301 it was again held that a detention order would not
    become invalid merely because ti)e detention order was passed on the
    detaining authority being apprehensive of the likelihood of the
    detenu's release on bail.
          In Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1988] 1 SCC
C   436 this Court observed:
                "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
D               the ,grant o!bail. He cannot, however, be interdicted from
                moving the court for bail by clamping an order of deten-
                tion. The possibility of the court granting 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
E               the record that the detenu, if enlarged on bail, would act
                prejudicially to the inte~st of public order. That has been
                made clear in Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad,
                where it was observed: [1986] SCC (Cr!.) 490 @ 495
                 (para7)
F                      A bald statement is merely an ipse dixit of the officer.
                If there were cogent materials for thinking that the detenu
                might be released then these should have been made appa-
                rent. Eternal vigilance on the part of the authority charged
                with both law and order and public order is the price which
                the democracy in this country extracts from the public offi-
G               cials in order to protect the fundamental freedoms of our
                citizens."

        All these cases were again ~onsidered in a latest judgment of this
   Court fo N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another,
H [1989j 4 SCC 418, and it was held that all those decisions of the Court
  •on this aspect have to be read jn the ·light of-the Constitution Bench
         ANAND PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. (V. RAMASWAMI, J.I              487

decision in Rameshwar Shaw's case (supra) and that the conclusion
                                                                               A
about the validity of the detention order in each case was reached
having regard to the facts and circumstances in the particular case.
       Thus the detaining authority though can take into account the
possibility of the detenu being released on bail in the criminal proceed-
ings,. have to be satisfied, having regard to his past activities or by
reason of the credible information or cogent reasons, that if he is            B
enlarged on bail, he would indulge in such criminal activities. In the
present case ·except the bald statement that the detenu would repeat
his ·criminal activities after coming out of the jail, there are no credible
information or material or cogent reasons apparent on the record to
warrant an inference that the detenu if enlarged on bail would indulge
in such criminal activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of        c
essential services. There must be something more than what is found in
the record here to come to the conclusion that this is not a case of
solitary incident but a case of the detenu indulging in business of
receiving stolen electric wires. On the other hand it appears to us that
the detention order has been made in order to supplant the criminal
prosecution which is not permitted.                                            D

      The learned counsel also contended that there is an unexplained
delay 'which makes the ground of detention not proximate vitiating the
order of detention itself. The theft of the wire was on 14.2.1989 and
the ,F.I.R. was registered on 15.2.1989. On that day itself as seen from
the record Jagdish, Santosh and Munshi Shaima were shown as E
                        0
accused on the basis of some information. The house of Jagdish was
raided on 3.3.1989 and on the same day the factory of the detenu was
raided and 20 k.g. of melted wire was recovered from Munshi Sharma
but no action was taken tilLl.5.1989 against the detenu. On being
                                              a
arrested on 2.5.1989 the detenu moved bail application and the
detention order itself was made on 3.5.1989. Though bail was granted, F
in view of the detention order he could not be released from jail. In
spite of the fact that the recovery statement itself was made as early as
on 3.3.1989 no action was taken till 3.5.1989. Nothing more is stated in
the detention order. The delay has also not been satisfactorily
explained in the counter statement of the respondents. The ground
instance, therefore, could not be a proximate cause for a sudden decision •G
to take action under the National Security Act and this also vitiates the
order.
      In the result we allow this writ petition, set aside the order of
d~tention and direct that the detenu be released forthwith.

P.S.S.                                                   Petition allowed.     H