Criminal Writ Petition No. 309 of 1995. Case: Sunil Sadashiv Bhosale Vs Gyanchand Verma Commissioner of Police Pune. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Writ Petition No. 309 of 1995 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: Sunil Kadam, Adv. and For Respondents: Mrs. R. P. Desai and J. C. Satpute, Advs. |
| Judges | V. H. Bhairavia, J. and P. S. Patankar , J. |
| Issue | National Security Act (65 of 1980) - Section 3 |
| Citation | 1996 CriLJ 1100 |
| Judgement Date | October 05, 1995 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
V. H. Bhairavia, J.
-
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of detention dated 17-11-1994 (Annexure 'A') passed under the National Security Act, 1980. The impugned detention order came to be passed against the detenu under the following reasons:
That it was reported that the detenu was involved in anti-social activities endangered to the security of the public. The grounds for detention enumerated in the order at Annexure 'C' considered by the Detaining Authority, respondent No. 1 and satisfied with the report regarding the anti-social activities of the detenu. The proposal for taking action against the detenu under the National Security Act was submitted to the respondent No. 1 on 10-9-94 and the Detaining Authority passed the impugned detention order at Annexure 'A' on 17-11-94. It reveals from the record that the detention order could be served only on 30th November, 1995 and the detenu was immediately detained on the same day. The detention order was confirmed by the Advisory Board and it was further confirmed on 19th January, 1995 by the Government. It reveals from the record that there was no representation made by the detenu to the Government directly but the representation was submitted by the detenu to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board has sent that representation along with the papers of its report. It also reveals that the Hon'ble Home Minister received the said representation on 11-1-95 and after consideration; it was rejected. The detenu was informed regarding the rejection of the representation on 19-1-95. Thereafter, this petition was filed, challenging the impugned detention order at Annexure 'A' and the confirmation order passed by the Government.
-
Heard the learned counsel Mr. Kadam for detenu. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Kadam that there is a delay in passing the detention order after the proposal received by the Detaining Authority. It has been submitted that the proposal was sent to the Detaining Authority on 10-9-1994 and the actual detention order came to be passed on 17-11-1994. The learned counsel submitted that delay in passing the detention order shows that there was no such anti-social or dangerous activities carried out by the detenu. Taking support of this arguments, the learned counsel relied on the judgement of this Court delivered in Yashin Amin Shaikh v. Satish Sahney, Commissioner of' Police...
To continue reading
Request your trial