RAM KUMAR PEARAY LAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Ram Kumar petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ of Habeas corpus for the production and release of Abdulla Shaukat Detenu from his detention, which is claimed to be unlawful. The petitioner asserts that he is a friend of the detenu.

(2.) THE District Magistrate of Delhi, respondent, made an order on July 25, 1964, under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, for detention of the detenu stating in the order that he was 'satisfied from information received, that it is necessary to detain Shri Abdulla Shaukat, son of Shri Karamat AH Khan, resident of 4416, Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'. Pursuant to that order the detenu was arrested on November 17, 1964, and since then is detained in Central Jail, Tehar (New Delhi ).

(3.) ON December 28, 1964, one Babu, claiming to be partner in business and pairokar of the detenu, moved an application under Section 491 of the Code of criminal Procedure for release of the detenu. In that application he alleged that in november 1963 contraband gold having been seized at the Punjab-Pakistan border, the customs authorities on suspicion searched the premises of the detenu. They wanted to search his premises again on November 14, 1963, to which he took exception, whereupon he was taken to the Customs Office for interrogation, and was arrested. He was produced before a Magistrate of the First Class who ordered his release on bail. On March 10, 1964, the detenu went to Pakistan to arrange his marriage and after his return he moved an application on October 29, 1964, before the Sessions Judge of Delhi for reduction of the amount of bail. In that connection he appeared in that Court on November 17, 1964, and when he came out of the Court he was arrested pursuant to the detention order already referred to. The petitioner sought release of the detenu on the ground that the detention is mala fide, with an ulterior purpose and oblique motive without there being any material with the detaining authority and without any incident prior to the order of detention which may be associated with the detenu and would be of the nature that is likely to affect the maintenance of public order, and is fraud on law as the respondent has no material to proceed against the detenu and has adopted this oblique course of detention, without showing that there exists a corelation between the allegations and the purpose of detention. In substance, the ground is that the order of detention has been made in bad faith without any material with the respondent to connect the activities of the detenu with the maintenance of public order and thus with an ulterior motive. It was also said in the petition that in the order of detention no grounds of detention have been indicated and the detenu has not been made aware of the nature of allegations against him. There is reference in the petition to the action taken against the detenu by the customs authorities, and this gives the clear indication that the petitioner was aware that the detenu had been detained in connection with smuggling activities, but he insisted that there was no past history of the detenu in that respect. In his affidavit the respondent stated that he has material with him showing that the detenu is a member of a gang of Indo-Pakistan smugglers of contraband gold from Pakistan and of currency from India and thus he is a potential danger to the economy of the country and risk to the security of the State and hazardous to public order. He further pointed out that on the material before him the facts available to him are that on October 28, 1963, the Amritsar Police recovered 30 kilograms of gold with foreign marking near Beas bridge from Manohar Lal and others in a car and, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that that gold had been smuggled from Pakistan on behalf of a smuggling syndicate headed by one Mohd. Latif of Lahore and Abdulla Shaukat (detenu) as his agent in India. The detenu admitted before the customs authorities that he had smuggled huge quantity of gold through one Dayal Singh, between October 1962 and August 1963, some 20 to 25 times, and each time the quantity of gold was about 2000 tolas. Again between August and October, 1964, on four occasions the quantity of gold involved was 8000 Tolas and he remitted the sale-proceeds out of India every time. The detenu was thereupon arrested for his unlawful activities but released on bail. The respondent further affirmed that the detenu is a notorious smuggler of gold into India from Pakistan and of currency from India and as such is a danger to the economy of India and his connections with bad characters and smugglers of pakistan have further rendered his activities dangerous to the security of the State as also the maintenance of public order. In this manner, in the affidavit of the respondent, the detenu obtained the material on the basis of which his detention has been ordered, material, which to my mind, he was not entitled to ask from the respondent.