MAHENDRA SINGH ALIAS MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. It appears that in connection with some quarrel between two groups of people (described as Mafia) of Adityapur, a quarter of the city of Jamshedpur, a proceeding under Sec. 107Cr.P.C. was initiated on 1.11.85. The petitioner who was a new man in the said area, for first time was seen belonging to one such group on 31.10.85. On 3.11.85, one Jairam Sharma was murdered on the busy chowk of the said area and a case in that connection was registered being Adityapur P.S. case no. 187, dated 3.11.85. The petitioner was named as an accused in the said case. In connection with the said substantive offence, he was taken in custody but on bail released by the Court. On 30.1.86, the District Magistrate, Singhbhum at Chaibasa recording as the back ground of the petitioner that he was a new man in the area though he indulged in anti social activities, he could not be named in any case because of lack of identity and for the first time his criminal activities came into light on 31.10.85, when the two Maria groups of Adityapur area came into competition with each other and preventive action was taken vide non F.I.R. no. 58/85, on 1.11.85 under Sec. 107Cr.P.C., issued an order of detention under Sec. 3 (2) of the National Security Act. On 4.2.86, grounds were served upon him which were as extracted :

(2.) He was released on Bail and thereafter violating the terms and conditions of Bail he was moving and creating panic in the area. The people of the area have so much been terrorized that no one dare to inform the police. He started threatening the witnesses which has been reported by an informant of P.S. On 27.1.86 he with his associates Prasidh Narain Singh were found in the Housing Colony with Arms and Ammunitions and threatening the witnesses. This created panic in the area the public order was disturbed. This has been entered in Adityapur P.S. Sanha No. 424 dated 27.1.86. When he with Prasidh Narain Singh was going on Tempo, police arrested him on the Main Road of Industrial area in the night of 27.1.86. On search a regular 38 bore Revolver (enfield) No. A -2571 loaded with cartridges was recovered from Mahendra Singh. In this connection Adityapur P.S. Case no. 18 dated 28.1.86 u/s 25(A) 26/27/ 35Arms Act was registered.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the State has contested the second contention by drawing our attention to the fact that the State Government after the petitioner's detention on 15.2.86 informed the Central Government as required by law and on the same day, referred the petitioner's case to the Advisory Board. According to him the requirement under Sec. 10was complied with once the State Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board, whether it was attended to by the Advisory Board or not. But Sec. 10has to be complied with in substance and in spirit. The expression used in it does not end the liability of the State Government with its writing or making a communication to the Board, but placing before the Advisory Board, the grounds on which the petitioner was detained. To the petitioner's averment that his case was not placed before the Advisory Board, the only reply in the counter affidavit is that the State Government referred it to the Board on 15.2.86. The State Government has not come forward with a case that the grounds on which the order was made and the representation, if any, made by the petitioner were placed before the Advisory Board within the statutory period of three weeks; The Advisory Board took up the case of the petitioner only on 1.3.86. There is no material before us rebutting the petitioner's assertion that before the Advisory Board, actually took up the petitioner's case for consideration, the grounds on which the order was made by the District Magistrate and the State Government were placed before it.