http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SMT. BIMLA RANI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/09/1989

BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) SAIKIA, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1989 SCR  Supl. (1) 241  1989 SCC  (4) 509  JT 1989 (3)   737        1989 SCALE  (2)660

ACT:     National      Security      Act,      1980:      Section 3--Detention--Detenu  in  jail in a  case  registered  under Section 307 I.P.C.--Detention Order-Based on solitary  inci- dent, but gave rise to communal tension and apprehension  of communal riot--Whether valid and legal.

HEADNOTE:     A  detention order under sub-section (2) read with  sub- section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act,  1980 was passed against the detenu on the ground that the detenu, who  was in jail in a case registered under Section 307  IPC was  trying for release on bail, and there was every  possi- bility  of  his being released, and that he  was  likely  to indulge in activities prejudicial to public order and public life. The order was confirmed by the State Government on the report of the Advisory Board.     In a Writ Petition filed in this Court it was  contended that  as the grounds of detention did not disclose any  past history of any crime by the detenu, nor was there any  mate- rial on record to show that the incident referred to in  the grounds  would  be repeated in future, the  detention  order based on a solitary incident and on an apprehension that the detenu  was likely to act prejudicially to the  interest  of public  order, in the event of his being released  on  bail, was illegal. Dismissing the writ Petition, the Court,     HELD: When an incident was such that it created communal tension and the authorities were apprehensive of the  break- ing  of  a  communal riot, such incident in  itself  may  be sufficient,  and may afford justification for the  satisfac- tion  of  the detaining authority for the detention  of  the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activ- ity  prejudicial  to public order even though  there  is  no antecedent act of similar nature or past history of  commis- sion of crime by the detenu. [246C-D]     In  the  instant case, the situation that emerged  as  a result  of the incident was grave and serious  and  prejudi- cially affected public order. 242 It  may be a solitary incident but it gave rise to  communal tension  and there was apprehension of a communal riot.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

police  report on the incident is a sufficient material  for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority  that there  was disturbance of tranquility and harmony of  public life.  The detaining authority had taken into  consideration all the circumstances including the grave and serious situa- tion  that emerged as a result of the incident.  There  were cogent reasons apparent on the face of the record for justi- fying the order of detention. [245H; 246A-B]     Alijan  Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad,  [1983]  3 SCR 939 and Ayya v. State of U.P. and another, [1989] 1  SCC 374, relied on.     Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, [1985] 4  SCC 232  and Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P.  and  others, [1988] 1 SCC 436, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.  296 of 1989. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).     U.R.  Lalit, Mrs. Rani Chhabra and Ms. Meera Chhiba  for the Petitioner.     B.  Dutta, Additional Solicitor General, Yogeshwar  Pd., Ms.  Sucharita,  Ms.  A Subhashini,  Dalveer  Bhandari,  Ms. Rachna Joshi and Rachna Gupta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     DUTT,  J. In this writ petition under Article 32 of  the Constitution  of India, the mother of the detenu, Shri  Pra- veen Kumar Gupta, has prayed for the quashing of the  deten- tion  order of her son dated May 6, 1989 passed  under  sub- section  (2) read with sub-section (3) of section 3  of  the National Security Act, 1980, as confirmed by the order dated May  11,  1989  of the State of U.P. on the  report  of  the Advisory  Board. There is also a prayer for issuance  of  an appropriate  writ in the nature of habeas  corpus  directing the  respondents  to release the said  Praveen  Kumar  Gupta forthwith.      The grounds of detention, as communicated to the detenu by the District Magistrate, Meerut, are as follows: 243               "That  on 30.4.89 at about 9.15 P.M. at  Delhi               Road, Kesarganj, P.S. Delhi Gate, Meerut,  you               along  with  your other  accomplice  with  the               common  intention to kill Babli  showing  your               wrath  gave him a gun injury and also  threat-               ened  to  give gun shot to those  persons  who               came  in his rescue. On the basis of  informa-               tion given by Mohd. Bhura a Crime Case No.  12               1  was registered against you u/s 307  IPC  in               P.S. Delhi Gate, Meerut, which is pending.  By               your above misdeed fear and terror was  spread               in  the hearts of public in the markets,  Mela               Manchandi and in the city of Meerut. Thus  you               have committed an act which is prejudicial  to               the maintenance of public order.                        You  are at present in jail  and  are               trying  to  be released on bail and  there  is               every possibility of releasing you on bail.                        On  the  basis of above  grounds  and               reasons 1 am satisfied that you are likely  to               indulge  in the activities prejudicial to  the               public  order and public life and with a  view               to  prevent  you  from acting  in  any  manner               prejudicial  to  the public order  and  public

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             life, it has become necessary to detain you."     It  is  apparent from the grounds of  detention  that  a crime case was registered against him under section 307  IPC and he was arrested and detained in jail.     Along  with  the  grounds of detention, a  copy  of  the report of the Inspector-in-Charge, P.S. Delhi Gate,  Meerut, was  also supplied to the detenu in jail. The relevant  por- tion of the report is extracted below:               "On 30.4.89 at busy road (Delhi Road) at about               21.15  P.M. he without any reasons gave a  gun               shot  to one Babli S/o Sh. Bhura  R/o  Mohalla               Purwa  Hamidnagar  who had  come  for  reading               Namaz,  as a result of which he was  seriously               injured. At present he is in serious condition               in the hospital. This site is the most  sensi-               tive  area of the city for communal  point  of               view. On receiving the information of the  gun               injury to Babli by the Muslim community on the               pious  occasion of Ramzan there  spread  great               excitement. Thousands of people from community               gathered. There was               244               an apprehension of communal threat in the city               and  area. People closed their  shops  feeling               threat  of communal riots and the road  became               quiet  due to fear and terror. Above  all,  on               receiving the news of this incident the people               of  famous Manchandi Mela started  running  to               their  houses.  This news of fear  and  terror               created  due  to this incident was  also  pub-               lished in the newspaper Amar Ujala on  1.5.89.               Sh.  Bhura  S/o  Dilsad R/o  29,  Purwa  Hamid               Hussain  got lodged one report in  the  Police               Station  Delhi Gate and a Crime Case No. 12  1               of 89 under section 307 IPC is pending consid-               eration.  Sh.  Praveen Kumar is  in  jail  for               commission of this offence.                         Praveen Kumar has given  application               for  bail  in the above matter  and  there  is               every  possibility of his release on bail.  He               is  a  man of strong means. After  release  on               bail  he would again commit such  serious  act               which would be prejudicial to communal harmony               and  cause adverse reaction in general  public               especially in Muslim community.                         Therefore  the detention  under  Na-               tional  Security Act is recommended  to  above               Praveen."     At  this stage, it may be mentioned that the detenu  has since been granted bail, but in view of the order of  deten- tion, he is not released. Mr. Lalit, learned Counsel appear- ing on behalf of the petitioner, has strongly urged that  as the grounds of detention does not disclose any past  history of  commission of any crime by the detenu and  the  incident that has been referred to in the grounds being the  solitary incident  and  there having been no materials on  record  to show that such an incident would be repeated in future,  the order of detention is illegal and should be quashed. Counsel submits that the only ground on which the detaining authori- ty had placed.reliance for making the order of detention was that  there  ’was a chance of the detenu being  released  on bail by the criminal court and, in that event, it was appre- hended  that he would act prejudicially to the  interest  of public order. It is submitted that such apprehension is  not supported  by any material on record and,  accordingly,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

detention order should be quashed.     In support of the above contention, learned Counsel  has placed  much reliance upon a decision of this Court in  Smt. Shashi  Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and others, [1988]  1  SCC 436. In that case, this Court observed as follows: 245               "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  the grant  of  bail.  He               cannot,  however, be interdicted  from  moving               the  court  for bail by clamping an  order  of               detention. The possibility of the court grant-               ing  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 the record that the  dete-               nu,  if enlarged on bail, would  act  prejudi-               cially to the interest of public order."     In laying down the above proposition of law, this  Court has placed reliance upon its two earlier decisions in Alijan Mian  v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, [1983] 3 SCR 939  and in Ramesh Yadav  v. District Magistrate, Etah, [1985] 4  SCC 232.     It  is  true that the incident on April 13, 1989  was  a solitary  one  so far as the detenu was concerned,  but  the question is whether the incident had prejudicially  affected the  public order. In other words, whether it  had  affected the  even  tempo of life of the community.  As  observed  in Alijan Mian’s case (supra), it is for the detaining authori- ty  to have the subjective satisfaction about the  apprehen- sion  of  the breach of the public order and that  even  one incident may be sufficient to satisfy the detaining authori- ty in that regard depending upon the nature of the incident. It  is not disputed by Mr. Lalit that a single incident  may disturb  the tranquility and the even tempo of life  of  the community.     In the grounds of detention, it has been stated "By your above  misdeed, fear and terror was spread in the hearts  of public  in  the markets, Mela Manchandi and in the  city  of Meerut. Thus you have committed an act which is  prejudicial to the maintenance of public order." This is not a mere bald statement of the detaining authority without any material in support  of  the same. We have already extracted  above  the report of the Inspector-in-Charge, P.S. Delhi Gate,  Meerut, which has been taken into account by the detaining authority at  the time he passed the order of detention. It  has  been already noticed that a copy of the said report was served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention. A  situation that  emerged as a result of the incident, as stated in  the said report, was grave and serious and prejudicially affect- ed public order. It may be a solitary incident, but it gave 256 rise  to  communal tension and there was apprehension  of  a communal  riot as alleged in the report. The report, in  our opinion, is a sufficient material for the subjective  satis- faction  of the detaining authority that there was  disturb- ance of ,tranquility and harmony of public life.     It  is not correct to say that there is no material  for the  apprehension that if released on bail, the detenu  will indulge in such criminal acts affecting public order.  Real- ly, the detaining authority had taken into consideration all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

the circumstances including the! grave and serious situation that  emerged as a result of the incident. In  our  opinion, when  an incident was such that it created communal  tension and  the authorities were apprehensive of the breaking of  a communal riot, such incident in itself may be sufficient and may afford justification for the satisfaction of the detain- ing  authority for the detention of the detenu in  order  to prevent  him from indulging in such activity prejudicial  to public order even though, as submitted by the learned  Coun- sel,  there is no antecedent acts of similar nature or  past history  of commission of crime by the detenu. In this  con- nection, we may refer to a recent decision of this Court  in Ayya v. State of U.P. and Another, [1989] 1 SCC 374. In that case, this Court observed as follows:               "Even a single instance of activity tending to               harm  "public  order" might,  in  the  circum-               stances  of its commission, reasonably  supply               justification  for  the satisfaction as  to  a               legislative  apprehension of a future  repeti-               tion  of similar activity to the detriment  of               "public order"."     The  above observation fully supports the view  we  have taken. In our opinion, there were cogent reasons apparent on the face of the record justifying the order of detention.     In the circumstances, we are of the view that the deten- tion of the petitioner was justified. The rule nisi is  dis- charged and the writ petition is dismissed. N.P.V.                                       Petition   dis- missed. 247