Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order passed under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the District Magistrate, Meerut on February 1, 1994 against Surya Prakash Sharma. The detenu was alleged to have brutally murdered Anil Kumar Jain on January 1, 1994 in a thickly populated area of Meerut, creating panic among residents. He was in judicial custody since January 22, 1994 in connection with that murder case. The grounds of detention stated that the detenu had moved a bail application on January 24, 1994 before the District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, which was fixed for hearing on February 2, 1994, and that if released on bail he might again indulge in serious offences causing threat to public order. The petitioner contended that since the detenu was already in judicial custody on the date of the detention order, there could be no apprehension of prejudicial activity, rendering the detaining authority's satisfaction improper. The respondents argued that an order of detention could validly be made against a person in custody for justifiable reasons and that the grounds were valid. The Court referred to Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan and Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, which laid down that a detention order against a person in custody is valid only if the grounds show that the detaining authority was aware of the custody and there were compelling reasons justifying detention. Compelling reasons require cogent material before the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to be released in the near future and, given the nature of his antecedent activities, likely to indulge in prejudicial activities after release. Applying these principles, the Court found that although the grounds indicated awareness of the detenu's judicial custody, the detaining authority had not brought on record any cogent material or furnished any cogent ground to support the averment that if released on bail he might again indulge in serious offences. The satisfaction was based solely on a solitary murder and was therefore improper. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order, and directed that the detenu be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Detention of Person Already in Judicial Custody - Compelling Reasons and Cogent Material Requirement - National Security Act, 1980, Section 3(3) - The Supreme Court considered the validity of a preventive detention order passed while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with a murder case. Following Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan and Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, the Court held that such an order is valid only if the grounds show awareness of custody and compelling reasons, which require cogent material that the detenu is likely to be released soon and would indulge in prejudicial activities. In this case, the detaining authority noted the detenu's custody and pending bail application but did not bring on record any cogent material to support the apprehension that he would again indulge in serious offences; the satisfaction was based solely on a solitary murder. Held that the detention order was unsustainable, the writ petition was allowed, the order was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in another case (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order for preventive detention can be validly passed against a person who is already in judicial custody, and whether the detaining authority's satisfaction in the present case was based on cogent material showing compelling reasons as required by law
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order dated February 1, 1994, and directed that the detenu Surya Prakash Sharma be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case
Law Points
- An order for preventive detention can be validly passed against a person already in custody only if the grounds of detention show that the detaining authority was aware of the custody and there were compelling reasons justifying detention
- compelling reasons require cogent material before the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to be released in the near future and
- considering the nature of antecedent activities
- likely to indulge in prejudicial activities after release
- absence of such cogent material
- based solely on a solitary murder
- renders the satisfaction improper and the detention order unsustainable
