The Allahabad High court has held that a person can be detained under the National Security Act for a single criminal case alone and even if no criminal case is registered. Division bench of Justices Bala Krishna Narayana and Vijay Lakshmi dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition filed by one Pankaj, praying for his release from detention. His prayer for quashing the detention order under Section 3(3) National Security Act, was also not granted.
The petitioner was detained upon receiving information about the illegal activities of the petitioner who was a dare devil criminal and a liquor smuggler engaged in illegal activity of smuggling illicit liquor from Haryana to his village Phugana and selling the same to the residents of the nearby villages, consumption whereof had been endangering the health and lives of the villagers.
The petitioner had contended that his detention under the NSA was only on the basis of a single criminal case in which no public order was involved and it was only a case relating to law and order and hence per-se illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.Rebutting these contentions, the state contended that the incident in which the petitioner was involved had totally disturbed the maintenance of public order. The detention order was passed after full satisfaction on the basis of the material available that there was very strong possibility of the petitioner being released on bail and on his release, he would again commit dare devil act which would disturb the maintenance of public order, not only in the localities within the area of P.S. Phugana but also in the entire district of Muzaffarnagar.
Rejecting this contention the court referring to Apex court decision in State of Punjab Vs. Sukhpal Singh, (1990)1 SCC 35 observed that there is no such bar that a person cannot be detained under the National Security Act only for a single criminal case.
The court also observed that the detaining authority has already recorded its subjective satisfaction for detaining the petitioner on the ground that the solitary incident in which he was involved had disturbed the current life of the community which had disturbed the public order. It also held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the aforesaid satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the impugned order is unwarranted or vitiated in any manner.
Read the Judgment here.