TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public Order. Consequent upon the passing of the said Order, the petitioner was arrested on December 1, 1971 and he has since then been detained in Dum Dum Central Jail. 2. The grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest stated as follows: (1) On the night of 30-7-71 at about 2000 hours you along with your associates entered into the Toddi Shop of Shri Gopinath Behara s/o Late Ram Behara at Gangnapore P. S. Ranaghat, District Nadia, and stabbed Shri Gopinath Behara with daggers causing severe bleeding injuries on his person. You also terrorised the local people by exploding bombs. Subsequently, the said Gopinath Behara succumbed to his in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant authorities under the Act took all steps, consequential to the passing of the said Order, as prescribed by the Act. 4. Two points, however, were urged by Counsel appearing amicus curiae for the petitioner. One was that ground No. 2 of the said grounds of detention pertained to the problem of law and Order and not to that of public Order, the act there attributed to the petitioner being a matter between two specific individuals only, and was there fore irrelevant to the objects in respect of which only detention could be directed under the Act The other was that there was delay of twenty one days on the part of the State Government in disposing of the petitioner's representation, which, in the circumstances of the case, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the degree of dis Order affecting, in one case the community at large, and in other, specific individuals, and only in a secondary sense public Order, in other words, between crimes against specific individuals and crimes against the public. Such a distinction appears at first sight attractive by reason of the simplicity of its test, but on a closer examination of it it fails to cover cases which are marginal and sometimes overlapping. As pointed out in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 1970 CriLJ 1136 the true distinction between the areas of law and Order and public lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. Acts similar in nature, but committed in different contexts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on account of any animus against the victim or for a motive such as personal vendetta. As the ground of detention asserts, it was committed with a view to promote a particular political ideology, that is to say, against one who did not subscribe to that ideology and as a warning against those who did not agree with or subscribe to such ideology. Obviously, it was intended to and did in fact terrorizes those who did not conform to that ideology, who out of panic abandoned their normal activities for fear that any one or more of them would be the target of such an attack. Viewed from this angle it is difficult to regard such an act as a mere infraction of law and Order, for, such an act committed with such an intent and object and in such c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of the provisions of Article 22(3) of the Constitution and would therefore affect the validity of the Order and the detention directed there under. Thus, in Nagendra Nath Mondal's case 1972 CriLJ 482 though thirty four days had elapsed between the receipt by the Government and the disposal by it of the representation of the detenu there that time gap was not regarded on the facts and circumstances of that case as constituting inordinate delay. 9. In the present case, two reasons explaining the delay have been put forward in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State: (1) the declaration of emergency consequent upon the breakout of the Indo-Pakistan war in December 1971, and (2) abrupt increase in detention cases bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons had ended and disposed of on January 14, 1972. It is strange that the Government there did not plead, as it has done in the instant case, the emergency and the resultant abrupt spurt In detention cases in that State and remained content with pleading its inability to dispose of the representations expeditiously owing to the demonstrations by its employees. The two cases offer no analogy to the present case especially as the representations in those two cases were received after the said demonstrations had terminated and no reason thereafter remained for the omission to dispose of those representations expeditiously. 11. As stated earlier, the representation in the present case was received on January 3, 1972, shortly after the war ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
