ANANT BHASKAR LAGU Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ANANT BHASKAR LAGU
Referred Judgements :-
SARENDRANATH SLIARMA V/S. STATE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Anant Bhaskar Lagu (who is-said to be a resident of Indore and Ujjain as he divides his time between the two please made the present application Under Section 491, Criminal P. C, By a subsequent application it was prayed on his behalf that it might be treated as an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.)The material facts are as follows:
On lab April 1949, the District Magistrate, Indore, passed an order under Madhya Bharat Maintenance of Public Order Act, samvat 2005, 3.3 (1) that Lagu be detained for a period of three months. It is-alleged that in enforcement of this order the petitioner waa arrested but he escaped from police custody. On 3rd December 1949, a constable saw him in Indore distributing some leaflets as part of propaganda for the communist party an association which was- declared unlawful in Indore. He was ultimately arrested in Indore on the night between 14th and 15th December 1949. On 15th December 1949, the District Magistrate Indore passed another order for his detention for three months. The grounds on which the order was passed were supplied to him on 25th December 1949. On 1st April 1950 the present petition for habeas corpus was made. On 2nd March 1950 the Second Magistrate, Indore, issued a warrant for his arrest on a charge Under Sec. 4 of Prohibition of Associations Dangerous to Public Peace Act No. 19 of 1949 and he is being prosecuted Under Sec. 4 (1) of that Act.
(3.)A case has also been started against him for the offence of having escaped from lawful custody after arrest, but in connection with that offence he was ordered to be released on bail. It was also slated before us that a fresh-order for his detention under Act 4 of 1950. Preventive Detention Act was passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Indore, on 7th March 1960. After some adjournment for reasons which it is not necessary to enter into, the case was taken up on 14th April 1950. On that date the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Advocate-General who appeared for the State both prayed that this case be heard by a-Division Bench, This prayer was allowed and it was accordingly fixed before a bench consist' ing of two Judges on 19th April 1950.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.