K.N.Seth, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Mood Chand alias Mullia has challenged the legality of his detention under the National Security Act. THE impugned order of detention dated January 16, 1982 was passed by the District Magistrate, Bareilly, under section 3 (2) of the Act.
(2.) THE order of detention is based on four grounds : (1) That on 26-2-1980 the detenu along with his eight other associates armed with gun, lathi etc. committed dacoity at the house of Ram Bharose Lal in village Gotiya Kishanpur, police station Anwla and in the course of the commission of dacoity shot dead Ram Lal uncle of Ram Bharose Lal. A case under section 396 IPC against the detenu ;and others is pending in court; (2) that on 22/23-5-1980 the detenu along with eight-ten other persons armed with guns, pistols etc. committed dacoity at the bouse of Chhadammi Lal, Goverdhan and Jagan in village Chakarpur, Mazra Bhimsar, police station Anwla and during the course of dacoity killed Paitri Ram and injured Lalta Prasad and decamped with goods worth about Rs. 10,000/- Crime case no. 136/80 under section 396 IPC was registered and the case is pending in court ; (3) that on 5/6-6-1981 the detenu along with four others had assembled in an attempt to commit dacoity at the house of Thakur Chandra Pal Singh resident of Nagina, police station Anwla and on being challenged three dacoits, namely, Jai Ram' Sumeri and Prahlad, along with fire arms and cartridges were apprehended on the spot but the detenu and his companion Surajpal managed to escape. Cases under sections 399 and 402 IPC and 25 Arms Act were registered against the aforesaid persons which were pending incourt; and (4) that on 29-7-1981 at about 8.30 P. M. the detenu along with Shyam Lal and Ved Ram with a view to rob passers by collected at a lonely place. THE Police succeeded in arresting the detenu and Shyam Lal along with a country made pistol and knife but the third companion succeeded in escaping. A case under section 398/401 IPC registered against them was pending in court. The order of detention along with grounds therefor and other relevant papers was served on the petitioner while he has in jail. It was urged that the incidents set out in the grounds of detention were so remote from the date of the order of detention that the District Magistrate could not possibly have arrived at bis subjective satisfaction on the basis of those incidents. In this connection it was also urged that the grounds, which formed the basis of the order of detention, relate to problem of law and order and not of maintenance of public order, and could not form a valid basis for the detention of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Golam Hussain v. Commissioner of Police Calcutta, AIR 1974 SC 1336 wherein it was observed that " there must be a live link between the grounds of criminal activity alleged by the detaining authority and the purpose of detention, namely, inhibition of prejudicial activity of the species specified in the statute. This credible chain is snapped if there is too long and unexplained an interval between the offending acts and the order of detention." Such is the ratio of proximity in Lakshman Khatik v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 1264. No authority, acting rationally, can be satisfied, subjectively otherwise, of future mischief merely because long ago the detenu bad done some thing evil. To rule otherwise is to sanction a simulacrum of a statutory requirement. But no mechanical test by counting the months of the interval is sound. It all depends on the nature of the acts relied on, grave and determined or less serious and corrigitde, on the length of the gap, short or long, on the reason for the delay in taking preventive action, like information of participation being available only in the course of an investigation. We have to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case. The Supreme: Court had occasion to consider the rule laid down in the aforesaid cases in Gora v - State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 473 and it was observed that " there is, therefore, no hard and fast rule that merely because there is a time lag of about six months between the ' offending acts ' and the date of the order of detention, the casual link must be taken to be broken and the satisfaction claimed to have been arrived at by the District Magistrate must be regarded as sham or unreal. Whether the acts of the detenu forming the basis for arriving at a subjective satisfaction are too remote in point of time to include any reasonable person to reach such subjective satisfaction must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test to be blindly applied by merely counting the number of months between the ' offending acts' and the order of detention. It is a subsidiary test evolved by the court for the purpose of determining the main question whether the past activities of the detenu is such that from it a reasonable prognosis can be made as to the future conduct of the detenue and its utility" In the present case it is true that two incidents of dacoity took place in February and May 1980 but the criminal activity of the petitioner continued till July 1981 when he is alleged to have been arrested on the spot with unlicensed arms. The complicity of the detenu in the dacoities came to light when he was identified by the witnesses in the identification parades. The petitioner was involved in two daring dacoities committed by a gang in which two persons were killed. Subsequently he and his companions had gathered to commit another dacoity but on information received by the police the attempt was frustrated and three of the miscreants are alleged to have been arrested on the spot though the petitioner managed to escape. He was ultimately arrested in July 1981 when illict arms were recovered. On the basis of the offending acts and the serious charges levelled against the petitioner the District Magistrate could reasonably arrive at a satisfaction that with a view to preventing the petitioner to carry on such activity it was necessary to detain him.
(3.) IT is obvious that the acts alleged against the petitioner were calculated to disturb the current life of the community in the villages which were the scene of operation of the dacoits gang. The petitioner and his associates, who are said to have participated in the dacoities, were armed with lethal weapons including guns and used these lethal weapons in utter disregard of human life and actually committed two murders. Their acts must have created a panic in the locality and seriously disturbed the even tempo of life of the community. This clearly amounted to disturbance of public order and the acts alleged against the petitioner had nexus with the object of maintenance of public order. The subjective satisfaction reached by the District Magistrate could not, therefore, be said to be based on irrelevant grounds. However, the petitioner is entitled to relief on the next submission put forward by the learned counsel. It was urged that the order of detention was passed when the petitioner was actually lodged in jail. There is no indication either in the grounds of detention or in any other material on record that the detaining authority was even aware of the fact that the detenu was already in jail for a long time. There is also no indication that the detaining authority applied his mind to the question whether it was necessary that a preventive detention order should be made. As ruled by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of Sammu and Kashmir, AIR 1982 SC 1023 " preventive detention is resorted to, to thwart future action. If the detenu is already in jail charged with a serious offence, he is thereby prevented from acting in a manner prejudicial to tie security of the State. May be, in a given case there yet may be the need to order preventive detention of a person already in jail. But in such a situation the detaining authority must disclose awareness of the fact that the person against whom an order of preventive detention is being made is to the knowledge of the authority already in jail and yet for compelling reasons a preventive detention order needs to be made". As observed earlier,, there is nothing to indicate the awareness of the detaining authority that the detenu was already in jail and yet the detention order was required to be made. This clearly exhibits non-application of mind and would result in invalidation of the order.;