D.H.SHUKLA - (1.) The petitioner Aslambhai alias Tunde Hasubhai Shaikh has challenged by this Special Criminal Application his detention under an order (Annexure A to the petition) dated 28-1-1986 passed by the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 3 of the National Security Act 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on several counts and has prayed for setting aside the said order of detention and set him at liberty forthwith.
(2.) The facts shortly stated are as under: The petitioner as stated above was detained under the Act vide order of the Police Commissioner dated 28-1-1986 and was supplied with the grounds of detention even dated in jail. A copy of the grounds of detention is to be found at Annexure B to the petition. The State of Gujarat respondent No. 2 in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by sub-sec. (4) of sec. 3 of the Act by order dated 6 approved the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police A copy of the approval order is Annexure C.
(3.) The grounds of detention allege that the petitioner had collected about persons of the Muslim Community at about 7-45 p. m. on 5 near Kadia Kui Circle and instigated them by shouting that there had erupted a communal riot in the Kalupur area that many Muslim brothers had badly suffered in that riot the shops were burnt or broken and that the members of the Muslim community (Tum Lok) were sitting pretty. By sitting idle no purpose would be served therefore all Muslims (Tum Lok) should get ready by availing of Gupti razor or a stick and whichever Hindu may happen to pass by be thrown down take your revenge Hindus (Unkobhi) should also realise that Muslims have not put on bangles do damage to the property of Hindus. I am with you. The crowd of Muslims which was thus instigated damaged a motor car bearing No. GA 6764 near Zakaria Masjid at about 8 p. m. on the same day and glass panel of the car was broken by the stick blows and Krishnakant Ratilal Patel who was sitting inside the car and the driver Manohar Hanumantsinh were injured by Gupti blows and the said car was put to fire. At that time the pedestrians started running helter-skelter. This way tempo of day to day life was throttled. The nearby shops were soon closed and an atmosphere of terror was created in that area and as a result there erupted a communal riot between the Hindus and the Muslims in the Kalupur area and on Gandhi Road on which account the day to day life of the people was disrupted. In order to take the situation under control the Police was required to clamp a curfew. In connection with this incident an offence was registered in the Crime Register at Kalupur Police Station at No. 5/86 under secs. 147 148 149 302 307 435 436 434 323 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. In regard to the aforesaid incident a complaint was lodged and a Panchnama was drawn and the statements of (1) Ashok Gordhandas Vasava (2) Jivabhai Harkhabhai Vaghela (3) Chandra Kishan Nayar (4) Sahebasinh Majbutsinh Agar (5) Kanubhai Bhogilal Modi (6) Mahmadrafik A. Shaikh (7) Navnitlal Lalbhai Parikh (8) Somaji H. Prajapati (9) Krishnakant Ratilal Patel and (10) Manohar Hanumantrao Maratha were recorded and from the contents of these statements the Police Commissioner was satisfied that it was necessary to immediately take the petitioner under detention since he was guilty of acts which were likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is also stated in the same detention order that in the opinion of the Police Commissioner it was not possible to stop the petitioner in his aforesaid activities under the ordinary law of the land because in that case he might get bail or he might go to the superior Court. It is also stated that this would consume delay and in the meantime the petitioner would prove himself an obstacle by continuing his activities in maintaining the public order. Therefore in order to immediately prevent the petitioner from proceeding with his activities it was found necessary to detain him as a last resort. It is also stated that under sec. 8(1) of the Act the reasons were intimated to him and the respective authorities before whom he could make a representation in his defence are also stated.;