- (1.)THESE are five applications under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of writs in the nature of 'habeas corpus' directing the release of the petitioners, who are said to be unlawfully detained in the Central Jail at Indore. The petitioners have been detained in pursuance of orders made by the District Magistrate of Morena for action prejudicial to the maintenance of public order Under Section 3 (1) (a) (ii), Preventive Detention Act, 1950. With the exception of the petitioner Udaybhan Singh, all other applicants were arrested on 2711-53, and the grounds of detention were served on each of them on 28-11-53. Udaybhan Singh was arrested on 1-12-53 and the grounds of detention were served on him on 2-12-53.
(2.)THE separate grounds of detention served on each of the petitioners are to the effect that the detenu concerned was associating himself actively with notorious, proclaimed and named leaders of gangs of dacoits and that on the dates mentioned in the grounds he aided, abetted and harboured these dacoits by supplying arms, ammunition and money, by giving information about the postings and movement of the police, by instigating them to commit dacoity and by -various other ways. The grounds on which the petitioners challenge their detention are similar. They are (i) that the statements set out in the grounds of detention about the alleged activities of the petitioners are baseless and false (ii) that the District Magistrate was not in fact satisfied with respect to any of the petitioners that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; (iii) that the allegations contained in the grounds of detention do not touch any of the matters covered by Section 3 (1) (a) (ii), Preventive Detention Act, 1950; (iv) that the acts referred to in the grounds constitute offences under the Penal Code and could not, therefore, be regarded as relevant grounds for preventive detention under the Act (v) and that the detention of the petitioners was illegal inasmuch as the Government did not refer the matter of the detention of any of the applicants to the Advisory Board within thirty days from the date of detention as required by Section 9 of the Act and further that the Advisory Board also admitted to dispose of the 'references' within the time prescribed by Section 10.
(3.)IN the affidavits filed in reply, the District Magistrate has denied the allegation of mala fides and said that on the reports received by him, he was satisfied that the detention of the petitioners was necessary. In relation to each of the detenus he has further stated that the detenu was found to have been associated with notorious dacoits and supplied them with arms and ammunition and gave them information, about the movements of the police and that in view of a situation of lawlessness and disorder in his district and of the fact that witnesses were not coming forward to give evidence against the detenu because of his long and close association with gangs of revengeful dacoits, recourse to the normal process of investigation and trial would not have been effective and appropriate. According to the affidavits of the District Magistrate, the Advisory Board having reported that there was sufficient cause for the detention oh the applicants, the Government has now confirmed the detention orders and continued the detention of the applicants Chandan Singh, Nawal Singh, Madan Singh and Hubbalal till 26-11-54 and of the applicant Udaybhan Singh till 30-1154.
;