{"id":98307,"date":"1989-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989"},"modified":"2015-02-03T05:53:25","modified_gmt":"2015-02-03T00:23:25","slug":"abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of … on 3 March, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of … on 3 March, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 2265, \t\t 1989 SCR (1) 890<\/div>\n
Author: B Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, B.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nABDUL RAZAK ABDUL WAHAB SHEIKH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS.N. SINHA, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABADAND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/03\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 2265\t\t  1989 SCR  (1) 890\n 1989 SCC  (2) 222\t  JT 1989 (1)\t478\n 1989 SCALE  (1)542\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1989 SC2274\t (11)\n RF\t    1990 SC1202\t (4)\n RF\t    1991 SC1640\t (12)\n D\t    1991 SC2261\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\n    Gujarat   Prevention  of  Anti-Social  Activities\tAct,\n1985--Section  3(2)--Detention order--Whether legal  and  in\naccordance  with law--Necessity for the detaining  authority\nto consider all relevant material.\n    National  Security\tAct 1980--Section  3--Detention\t or-\nder--Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority based on\napplication of mind--Necessity for making an order of deten-\ntion--Past  history and antecedents of detenu----When  rele-\nvant.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, Respondent No.  1\ntherein passed an order of detention dated 23.5.1988 against\nAbdul Latif Abdul Wahab, petitioner's brother under  section\n3(2)  of  the Gujarat Prevention of  Anti-Social  Activities\nAct, 1985 and served the same on the detenu, while he was in\njail, in pursuance of an order of remand made by the  Desig-\nnated Court, Ahmedabad in CR No. 40 of 1987. The petitioner,\ndetenu's  brother challenged the validity of this  order  on\nthe  ground,  amongst others, that there has  been  absolute\nnon-application of mind on the part of the detaining author-\nity in making the order of detention.\n    The grounds of detention furnished to the detenu,  makes\nmention\t of three criminal cases viz. Case no. 372\/85,\tCase\nno.  456\/87 and Case no. 2\/88 pending against the detenu  at\nP.S.  Kalupur, out of which case no. 372\/85 is stated to  be\npending in Court and the other two pending for\texamination.\nThe  detaining\tauthority acting on the basis  of  the\tsaid\ncomplaints  apprehended\t that detenu's\tcriminal  activities\nwill  adversely affect the public order because the  activi-\nties,  the  weapons kept by the detenu\tand  his  associates\ncannot\texcept\tcreate terror in the State of  Gujarat.\t The\ndetaining  authority further felt that the detenu though  in\njail,  there are full possibilities that he may be  released\non bail in that offence. It may be pointed out that in\tcase\nno. 2\/88, the name of the detenu does not find place in\t the\nFIR. Likewise in case no. 372\/85 aforesaid, detenu's name is\nnot there.\n891\n    In\tcase no. 456\/87, registered on 16.10.87\t the  detenu\nwas  arrested the same day. The case related to the  seizure\nof  a  revolver\t from the person of  detenu.  The  detaining\nauthority  while issuing the order of detention against\t the\ndetenu, did not at all consider the fact that the Designated\nCourt declined to grant bail to the detenu by its order\t dt.\nMay  13,  1988. The detaining authority also was  not  aware\nthat no application for bail by detenu was filed between May\n13 to May 23, 1988 i.e. when the detention order was made.\n    The\t Court\tin order to decide the\tvarious\t contentions\nadvanced  by the parties felt it necessary to  consider\t the\nbackground  as well as the various detention  orders  passed\nagainst the detenu. The first in the series is an order\t dt.\n11th September, 1984 when the Respondent No. 1 issued to the\ndetenu a notice to show cause why he should not be  externed\nfrom the boundaries of Ahmedabad and the surroundings  rural\nareas.\tIn 1985 the detenu was arrested u\/s 307,  143,\t147,\n148  & 324, I.P.C. CR case no. 37\/85 wherein he was  granted\nbail  by  the Sessions Judge on February 14, 1985.  On\t24th\nMarch  1985,  Commr. of Police passed an order\tof  detenu's\ndetention.  On 6th July 1985 charge-sheet in CR Case No.  37\nof 1985 was submitted. On 27th September, 1985 inquiry\tinto\nthe  externment proceedings was completed. On Dec. 12,\t1985\nthe  detenu surrendered and was taken into custody.  On\t May\n26, 1986, the detenu was acquitted in that case. The  detenu\nwas  released from the jail on June 23, 1986 and as soon  as\nhe came out of the jail, an order of detention under Preven-\ntion of Anti Social Activities Act was served on the  detenu\nthere and then and he was once again taken into custody.  It\nmay  be mentioned in this connection that on Jan. 18,  1986,\nthe  order of externment of the detenu from  Ahmedabad\tcity\nand  rural  areas  of Gandhi Nagar etc. was  made  when\t the\ndetenu was in jail. The State Govt. on appeal by the  detenu\nconfirmed  the\torder of externment. However  on  August  7,\n1986, the Govt. revoked the order of detention, as  Advisory\nBoard  could not be constituted. On the same day  the  State\nGovt.  passed the second order of detention under  PASA\t and\nthe  same was served on the detenu the same day. The  detenu\nchallenged the validity of both the externment order as also\nthe  detention order in the High Court. The High  Court\t re-\njected\tthe petition challenging the order of detention\t and\nhe  filed  petition for special leave in  this\tCourt.\tThis\nCourt released the detenu on parole on 23.1.87 as he was  to\nparticipate in municipal elections which were to take  place\non 25th Jan. 1987. The detenu was released on parole on 24th\nJan. 1987. He won the election from all the wards  wherefrom\nhe had contested.\nThis  Court on February 9, 1987 quashed the detention  order\nand\n892\ndirected the respondents to set the detenu at liberty.\n    On February 14, 1987 when the detenu went to the  police\nstation\t with his advocate to mark his presence as  required\nby  the earlier bail order, he was again taken into  custody\nfor  breach  of\t order of externment of\t 18.1.1986.  He\t was\ngranted bail.\n    On February 15, 1987 an order of detention under section\n8(a)  of  the National Security Act was passed\tagainst\t the\ndetenu.\t The detenu challenged the same but in the  meantime\nAdvisory Board released him.\n    On\tOctober 16, 1987, the detenu was again arrested\t for\nan incident of Feb. 14, 1986. He applied for bail before the\nDesignated  Court which was refused. Against that  order  he\npreferred  an appeal to this Court under section 16  of\t the\nTerrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act  1985.\nThis  Court set aside the order of the Designated Court\t and\nremitted the matter back to the said Court with a  direction\nto  decide the matter afresh and enlarge the detenu on\tbail\npending the disposal of the application for bail.\n    Another order of detention was passed against the detenu\non  Jan. 25, 1988 which was later withdrawn as the  Advisory\nBoard declined to confirm the same. The detenu was  released\non March 14, 1988.\n    At the hearing of the appeal by this Court on 7.4.88  an\napplication was made that the detenu has absconded whereupon\nthis Court ordered that the detenu should surrender within a\nweek's\ttime. He accordingly surrendered on April 13,  1988.\nOn May 23, 1988 the order of detention in question was\tmade\nwhich is hereby challenged.\n    The\t contention  raised on behalf of the  petitioner  is\nthat in the grounds of detention furnished in support of the\norder  of detention, no prejudicial act on the part  of\t the\ndetenu is alleged between March 14, 1988 and April 13,\t1988\nduring\twhich small period he was a free man; as he  was  in\njail  for nearly three years prior to March 14, 1988  except\nfor short periods when he was on parole, and after April 13,\n1988 again he was under custody. It is urged that no  preju-\ndicial\tactivity  has  been shown, when the  detenu  was  on\nparole.\t As  such  the action of the  respondent  is  wholly\nvindictive  and in total defiance of law. According  to\t him\nthere  has  been no application of mind at all to  the\tmost\nglaring\t fact that the Designated Court in defiance of\tthis\nCourt's\t order did not grant interim bail to the  detenu  by\nits order dt. 13.5.88. There was no possibility therefore of\nthe detenu being released on bail. It was thus impossi-\n893\nble to prove the statement made in the grounds of  detention\nthat  there were full possibilities that the detenu  may  be\nreleased on bail in this case.\nAllowing the petition, this Court,\n    HELD:  The\tdetention of a person without a trial  is  a\nvery serious encroachment on his personal freedom and so  at\nevery stage, all questions in relation to the detention must\nbe carefully and solemnly considered. [901G]\n     The past conduct or antecedent history of a person\t can\nbe  taken into account in making a detention order  but\t the\npast  conduct or antecedent history of the person, on  which\nthe  authority purports to act, should ordinarily be  proxi-\nmate  in point of time and would have a rational  connection\nwith  the conclusion drawn by the authority that the  deten-\ntion of the person after his release is necessary. [901F-G]\n    There  must\t be awareness in the mind of  the  detaining\nauthority  that\t the  detenu is in custody at  the  time  of\nservice\t of the order of detention on him, and cogent  rele-\nvant  materials\t and fresh facts have been  disclosed  which\nnecessitate the making of an order of detention. [905D-E]\n    In\tthe instant case, the detenu was in jail custody  in\nconnection  with a criminal case and the order of  detention\nwas  served  on\t him in jail. It is also  evident  that\t the\napplication for bail filed by the detenu was rejected by the\nDesignated  Court  on  May 13, 1988. The  statement  in\t the\ngrounds\t of  detention that at present you are in  jail\t yet\n\"there\tare full possibilities that you may be\treleased  on\nbail in this offence also\" clearly shows that the  detaining\nauthority was completely unaware of the fact that no  appli-\ncation\tfor  bail was made on behalf of the detenu  for\t his\nrelease\t before the Designated Court and as such the  possi-\nbility of his coming out on bail is non-existent. This\tfact\nof  non-awareness of the detaining authority clearly  estab-\nlishes\tthat the subjective satisfaction was not arrived  at\nby  the\t detaining authority on\t consideration\tof  relevant\nmaterials.  The only period during which he was free  person\nwas from March 14, 1988 to April 13 1988. During this period\nno  act prejudicial to the maintenance of public  order\t has\nbeen alleged to have been committed by the detenu.  [905E-G;\n906E-F]\n     A mere bald statement that the detenu is in jail custo-\ndy  is\tlikely\tto be released on bail and  there  are\tfull\npossibilities that he may continue\n894\nthe offensive activities without reference to any particular\ncase  or  acts\tdoes not show on the face of  the  order  of\ndetention that there has been subjective satisfaction by the\ndetaining  authority  in making the order  of  detention  in\nquestion. [907C-D]\n    The\t order of detention was accordingly quashed and\t the\ndetenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith. [907D]\n    Rameshwar  Shaw  Burdwan  & Anr.  v.  Distt.  Magistrate\nBurdwan\t & Anr.,<\/a> [1964] 4, SCR 921 referred to; Alijan\tMian\nv.  Distt. Magistrate Dhanbad & Ors.<\/a> etc., [1983] 4 SCC\t 301\nreferred to; Ramesh Yadav v. Distt. Magistrate, Etah & Ors.,<\/a>\n[1985]\t4  SCC 232 referred to; Suraj Pal Sahu v.  State  of\nMaharashtra  &\tOrs.,<\/a> [1986] 4 SCC 378\treferred  to;  Vijay\nNarain\tSingh  v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1984]\t 3  SCR\t 459\nreferred  to;  Raj  Kumar Singh v. State of  Bihar  &  Ors.,\n[1986]\t4 SCC 407 referred to; Binod Singh v. Distt.  Magis-\ntrate  Dhanbad\t& Ors., [1986] 4 SCC 416 at  420-21;  Poonam\nLata  v.M.L. Wadhawan and Anr., [1987] 4 SCC 48 referred  to\nand  Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors.,<\/a> [1988]  1\nSCC 436 at 440, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.\t 307
\nof 1988.\n<\/p>\n
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
\n    Ram\t Jethmalani,  U.R.  Lalit, Ms.\tKamini\tJaiswal\t and
\nArvind Nigam for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    T.U.  Mehta,  Dushiant  Dave, M.N. Shroff  and  Mrs.  S.
\nDikshit for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    RAY,  J.  The petitioner who is the brother\t of  detenu,
\nAdbul  Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh of Ahmedabad has  challenged
\nin  this writ petition the order of detention dated May\t 23,
\n1988  passed  by the respondent No. 1, the  Commissioner  of
\nPolice, Ahmedabad City, Gujarat issued under Section 3(2) of
\nthe  Gujarat Prevention of AntiSocial Activities  Act,\t1985
\nand served on the detenu while the detenu was in custody  at
\nSabarmati  Central Prison under a judicial order  of  remand
\nmade  by the Designated Court, Ahmedabad in respect of\tC.R.
\nNo.  40\t of 1987, on the grounds inter alia that  there\t has
\nbeen  absolute\tnon-application of mind on the part  of\t the
\ndetaining authority
\n895<\/span>
\nin  clamping  the  order  of detention\tand  also  on  other
\ngrounds.\n<\/p>\n
    In\torder  to decide the various contentions  raised  in
\nthis  writ petition, it is necessary to consider  the  back-
\nground\tas  well as the various orders of  detention  passed
\nagainst the detenu by the detaining authority, the  respond-
\nent No. 1. On September 11, 1984, the detenu was served with
\na  show-cause notice under Section 59 of the  Bombay  Police
\nAct, 1951 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should
\nnot  be\t externed from the limits of Ahmedabad\tCity  Police
\nCommissioner’s\tjurisdiction  and its surrounding  areas  as
\nalso from the rural areas of Gandhinagar, Kheda and  Mehsana
\nDistrict  limits  for the activities of February,  1983.  In
\n1985  the  detenu was arrested for  alleged  offences  under
\nSections  307,\t143, 147, 148, 149 and 324 of  Indian  Penal
\nCode in C.R. No. 37 of 1985. On February 14, 1985 the detenu
\nwas  granted  bail in the said case by the  Sessions  Court,
\nAhmedabad.  On\tMarch 18, 1985 communal riots broke  out  in
\nAhmedabad  city and on March 24, 1985 an order of  detention
\nunder  the  National  Security Act was\tpassed\tagainst\t the
\ndetenu\tby the respondent No. 1. During the  communal  riots
\none  Police  Sub-Inspector, Mr. Rana was killed\t in  Kalupur
\nP.S.F.I.R.  was\t lodged\t against the detenu  and  six  other
\naccused\t on May 9, 1985. In the FIR the detenu was named  as
\naccused No. 2. On July 6, 1985 charge-sheet was submitted in
\nC.R.  No.  37  of 1985. On September 27,  1985\tenquiry\t was
\ncompleted  in  externment  proceedings\tand  arguments\twere
\nheard.\tOn  November  12, 1985, the  detenu  surrendered  to
\npolice\tand he was arrested and taken into custody.  In\t the
\nsaid  case accused Nos. 6 and 7 were discharged, the  detenu
\nalong with accused No. 4 was tried in the said charge by the
\nPrincipal  Judge, Sessions Court who by his  Judgment  dated
\nMay, 26, 1986 acquitted the detenu and the co-accused  after
\nrecording  of the evidence of witnesses and considering\t the
\nsame.  The  detenu  was, however, enlarged on  bail  by\t the
\nMagistrate  in the said case vide his order dated  June\t 23,
\n1986  as no case was made out against the detenu under\tSec-
\ntion  307  I.P.C. and the offence, if any,  was\t only  under
\nSection 324 I.P.C. The detenu was released from jail on June
\n23, 1986 and immediately as he came out, an order of  deten-
\ntion  under  the Prevention of\tAnti-Social  Activities\t Act
\n(PASA)\twas served on the detenu there and then and  he\t Was
\nonce again taken into custody. It is relevant to mention  in
\nthis  connection that on January 18, 1986 the order  of\t ex-
\nternment  of the detenu from Ahmedabad City and rural  areas
\nof  Gandhinagar etc. was made while he was in  custody.\t The
\ndetenu\tpreferred  an appeal against  the  externment  order
\nwhich  was heard by the Deputy Secretary (Home).  The  State
\nGovernment  confirmed  the order of externment on  June\t 23,
\n1986. On August 7, 1986,
\n896<\/span>
\nthe  State Government revoked the order of  detention  dated
\nJune  23,  1986\t on the ground that no\tAdvisory  Board\t was
\nconstituted. On the same day, however, the State  Government
\npassed the second order of detention under PASA and the same
\nwas served on the detenu on the same day. The detenu filed a
\nSpecial Criminal Application No. 862 of 1986 challenging the
\nexternment order dated January 18, 1986 and its confirmation
\norder dated June 23, 1986 before the High Court of  Gujarat.
\nThe  detenu also filed another Special Criminal\t Application
\nNo. 889 of 1986 before the High Court challenging the second
\norder of detention dated August 7, 1986. The Special  Crimi-
\nnal  Application No. 889 of 1986 was dismissed by  the\tHigh
\nCourt on October 21, 1986. Against this judgment the  detenu
\nfiled  a  Special  Leave Petition (Crl.) No.  3762  of\t1986
\nbefore this Court and the said Petition was finally heard in
\npart on January 23, 1987 and it was adjourned to February 3,
\n1987.  This  Court  released the detenu on  parole  only  on
\nJanuary 23, 1987 for the reason that the detenu was required
\nto be in Ahmedabad because the Corporation elections were to
\ntake place on January 25, 1987. Unfortunately, the mother of
\nthe detenu expired on January 23, 1987, but in spite of\t the
\norder  of  parole made by this Court, the  State  Government
\npermitted  the\tdetenu\tto attend his  mother’s\t funeral  by
\ngranting him parole for only four hours and after the funer-
\nal, the detenu was again taken into custody. Thereafter, the
\ndetenu\twas  released  on parole on January  24,  1987.\t The
\nelections for the Corporation were held on January 25,\t1987
\nand the detenu was declared elected from all the wards\tfrom
\nwhich he had contested.\n<\/p>\n
    On February 3, 1987, the appeal of the detenu was  heard
\nfinally\t by  this Court and this Court extended\t the  parole
\ngranted to him till the judgment was delivered in the  case.
\nHowever,  on  February\t3, 1987 in spite of  the  orders  of
\nparole, the detenu was kept in custody and was released only
\non  the\t next day i.e. February 4, 1987. This Court  by\t its
\njudgment dated February 9, 1987 quashed the detention  order
\nand  directed the respondents to set the detenu\t at  liberty
\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t detenu\t in  terms of his earlier  bail\t orders\t was
\nrequired to be present before Kalupur P.S. every morning  at
\n11 a.m. and he continued to do so from February 9 to  Febru-
\nary 14, 1987. On February 14, 1987 when the detenu  reported
\nat  Kalupur  P.S.  along with his  Advocate  to\t record\t his
\npresence,  he was asked to wait there. At about 12.30  p.m.,
\nhe was informed that he was taken into custody for breach of
\norders of externment dated January 18, 1986. The FIR against
\nthis case was registered and the detenu was produced  before
\nthe Metropolitan Magistrate at about 1.30 p.m. The Metropol-
\nitan Magistrate
\n897<\/span>
\ngranted bail to the detenu. At that time the detenu received
\nthe  news  that disturbances had broken out in the  city  of
\nAhmedabad  and, therefore, he declined to avail of the\tbail
\norder and requested the Magistrate to take him into custody.
\nOn  February 15, 1987, the order of detention under  Section
\n8(a)  of  the National Security Act was passed\tagainst\t the
\ndetenu\tby the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad  City.\t The
\ndetenu was served with the order which was confirmed by\t the
\nState Government on February 18, 1987. This order of  deten-
\ntion  was challenged by the detenu by a writ petition  under
\nSection\t 32 of the Constitution of India before\t this  Court
\nbeing  Writ  Petition  (Crl.) No. 246 of  1987.\t This  Court
\nissued rule returnable on April 4, 1987. Pending disposal of
\nthe writ petition, the detenu was released on April 3,\t1987
\nby the AdviSory Board constituted under the National Securi-
\nty  Act.  Furthermore, to harass the detenu two\t FIRs  being
\nC.R.  Nos. 34 and 40 of 1987 were lodged against the  detenu
\nin  Kalupur  P.S. On June 22, 1987 the detenu  on  receiving
\nnotices\t of  two meetings, one of the General Body  and\t the
\nother  of Suez Refugee Committee of the Ahmedabad  Municipal
\nCorporation to be held on June 26 and June 23, 1987  respec-
\ntively,\t made an application to the Home Secretary,  Govern-
\nment  of Gujarat seeking permission to visit  Ahmedabad\t for
\none  month.  As\t no reply was received by  the\tdetenu,\t the
\ndetenu moved Crl. Misc. Petition No. 1345 of 1987 before the
\nHigh Court for permission to visit Ahmedabad. the  aforesaid
\nMiscellaneous applications were rejected by the High  Court.
\nThereafter,  the detenu filed Special Leave Petition  (Crl.)
\nNo.  1952  of 1987 before this Court  against  the  impugned
\norder of externment of the detenu for a period of two  years
\nwith effect from January 18, 1986. Notice was issued on\t the
\nsaid  petition but as the period of externment expired,\t the
\nsaid petition was finally disposed of by this Court.
\nOn  October 16, 1987, the detenu was arrested by the  police
\nfor an alleged offence committed by the detenu in respect of
\nthe incident of February 14, 1987 i.e. breach of  externment
\norder dated January 18, 1986. The detenu applied for bail to
\nthe Designated Court, Ahmedabad but the bail application was
\nrejected  vide\torder dated November 24,  1987.\t The  detenu
\nfiled  an appeal before this Court under Section 16  of\t the
\nTerrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,  1985.
\nThis  appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1988 was\tdis-
\nposed  of by this Court on April 27, 1988 setting aside\t the
\nimpugned order of the Designated Court rejecting application
\nfor bail and remitting the case to the Designated Court\t for
\na decision afresh. The Designated Court was also directed to
\nenlarge the applicant on bail on such terms as it deems\t fit
\npending disposal of the application
\n898<\/span>
\nfor  bail on merits. The respondents being afraid that\tthis
\nCourt  may allow the said Criminal Appeal No. 3 16  of\t1987
\nmade  another  order of detention on January  25,  1988\t and
\nserved the order on the detenu on the same day. This  deten-
\ntion  order was made under Section 3 of the Gujarat  Preven-
\ntion  of  Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.  This  order  of
\ndetention  was challenged by Criminal Writ Petition No.\t 114
\nof 1988 before this Court. Rule was issued and the  petition
\nwas  heard on merits. The detention order was  withdrawn  as
\nthe  Advisory Board refused to confirm the order  of  deten-
\ntion. The detenu was released on March 14, 1988. The  detenu
\naccordingly went home. However, when Criminal Appeal No. 316
\nof  1988 came up for hearing before this Court on  April  7,
\n1988 an allegation was made that detenu had absconded.\tThis
\nCourt  however,\t ordered on April 7, 1988  that\t the  detenu
\nshould\tsurrender within a week. In compliance of  the\tsaid
\norder  the detenu surrendered on April 13, 1988 and  on\t May
\n23, 1988 the order of detention was made as stated hereinbe-
\nfore.\n<\/p>\n
    It\thas  been stated in the writ petition  that  in\t the
\ngrounds\t of  detention in support of the  present  order  of
\ndetention  dated  May 23, 1988, no act on the  part  of\t the
\ndetenu is alleged between March 14, 1988 and April 13, 1988.
\nIt has also been stated that it was the only period of\tless
\nthan  a month during which the detenu was a free man.  After
\nApril  13, 1988 the detenu has been continuously in  custody
\nand prior to March 14, 1988 also the detenu was continuously
\nin  custody  for nearly three years save for  short  periods
\nduring\twhich  he was released on parole by this  Court.  No
\nprejudicial  act has been alleged against the detenu  during
\nthe days when the detenu was out on parole.\n<\/p>\n
    It has been further stated that no prejudicial  activity
\nof  any kind is alleged against the detenu after  March\t 14,
\n1988 being the date on which the earlier order of  detention
\nstood  revoked by virtue of the Advisory  Board’s  decision.
\nThe  action  of respondents is plainly vindictive  in  total
\ndefiance of law and disgraceful blot on any civilised admin-
\nistration of justice. It has also been stated that there has
\nbeen no application of mind at all to the most glaring\tfact
\nthat the Designated Court in defiance of this Court’s  order
\ndid not grant interim bail to the detenu by its order  dated
\nMay  13,  1988. There was no possibility therefore,  of\t the
\ndetenu\tbeing released on bail. It is impossible to  justify
\nthe  statement made in the grounds of detention\t that  there
\nare  full possibilities that the detenu may be\treleased  on
\nbail  in  this case. This statement, it has been  stated  is
\nrecklessly  false. It has also been stated that\t the  entire
\nmaterial  which\t forms\tthe basis of the  present  order  of
\ndetention and the grounds of detention was available at the
\n889<\/span>
\ntime of the detention order of January 25, 1988.
\n    The detaining authority, the respondent No. 1 has  filed
\nan  affidavit in reply. In para 16 of the said affidavit  it
\nhas been stated that it is true that the detenu was released
\nby  the Advisory Board on April 3, 1987; but it is not\ttrue
\nto  say that two FIRs were lodged against the detenu with  a
\nview  to harass him. These two FIRs i.e.C.R. Nos. 34 and  40
\nof  1987 were registered against the detenu on February\t 14,
\n1987 at P.S. Kalupur i.e. prior to the order dated April  3,
\n1987  passed  by the State Government. C.R.  No.  34\/87\t was
\nregistered at P.S. Kalupur against the detenu for breach  of
\nexternment order while C.R. No. 40\/87 was registered against
\nthe  detenu  at P.S. Kalupur for an offence  of\t provocative
\nspeech made by the detenu.\t\t   ”\n<\/p>\n
    In para 32, the respondent No. 1 merely denied the\taver-
\nments  made  in para 3(III) of the petition wherein  it\t was
\nspecifically averred that there was no specific material for
\npassing the detention order against the detenu. In para\t 34,
\nthe respondent No. 1 has denied the statement that there  is
\nno  application of mind to the facts of the case  stated  in
\nthe  petition.\tIt has also been stated that  the  statement
\nthat there is no material to justify the action taken by the
\ncompetent authority is not true.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tappears\t from  the grounds of  detention  which\t was
\nserved\tunder section 9 of the said Act that three  criminal
\ncases have been mentioned. These are:<\/p>\n
\n 1. P.S. Kalupur    U\/s 25(a)(c) of Arms     pending in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Court\n Case No. 372\/85    Act, Sections 4, 5 of\n\t\t   Explosive Act.\n2. P.S. Kalupur\t   U\/s 120(b) of I.P.C.\t     Pending for\nCase No. 456\/87\t   U\/s 25(1)(e)(c) of\t     examination\n\t\t   Arms Act and U\/s (1)\n\t\t   of the Terrorists\n\t\t   Act, 1985\n3. P.S. Kalupur\t   U\/s 307, 120(b) of IPC     Pending for\nCase No. 2\/88\t   U\/s 3(1) of Terrorists     examination.\n\t\t   Act, U\/s 4, 5 of Explo-\n\t\t   sives Act, U\/s 25(1)(c)\n\t\t   (1) of Arms Act and U\/s\n\t\t   135(1) of Bombay Police\n\t\t   Act.\n900<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
    It\thas  also  been stated therein\tthat  after  careful
\nconsideration of the facts of the complaint of the aforesaid
\noffences it is apprehended that detenu’s criminal activities
\nwill  adversely affect the public order because the  activi-
\nties,  the  weapons kept by the detenu\tand  his  associates
\ncannot except create terror in the State of Gujarat.
\nIt has been further stated that:\n<\/p>\n
    “You   are\tarrested for committing the  said  offences,
\neven  though  you are released on bail from  the  Court.  At
\npresent\t you are in jail in the case registered\t in  Kalupur
\nPolice Station offence register No. 40\/87 and there are full
\npossibilities  that  you  may be released on  bail  in\tthis
\noffence also.”\n<\/p>\n
    Out of these cases in respect of Case No. 2\/88 which was
\nregistered on January 2, 1988 the name of the detenu is\t not
\nmentioned  in the F.I.R. In Case No. 372\/85 also  which\t was
\nregistered  on June 26, 1985, the name of the detenu is\t not
\nin the FIR. The detenu, however, was arrested on October 17,
\n1987  i.e.  after a lapse of more than two years  and  three
\nmonths.\t In Case No. 456\/87 which was registered on  October
\n16, 1987, the detenu was arrested on October 16, 1987.\tThis
\ncase related to the seizure of a revolver from the person of
\nthe  detenu who kept the same without any licence in  viola-
\ntion of the provisions of Arms Act. The detaining  authority
\nwhile issuing the order of detention against the detenu, the
\nbrother of the petitioner who is already in custody, did not
\nat all consider the fact that the Designated Court  declined
\nto grant bail to the detenu by its order dated May 13,\t1988
\nin Crl. Misc. No. 511 of 1988. The detaining authority\talso
\nwas not aware that no application for bail on behalf of\t the
\ndetenu\twas  filed between May 13 to May 23, 1988  i.e.\t the
\ndate  when the detention order was made. Had this fact\tbeen
\nknown  to the detaining authority, the\tdetaining  authority
\ncould have considered whether in such circumstances he would
\nhave  been  subjectively satisfied on the  basis  of  cogent
\nmaterials,  fresh facts and evidences that it was  necessary
\nto  detain  him\t in order to prevent him from  acting  in  a
\nmanner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
\n    In\tRameshwar  Shaw v. District  Magistrate,  Burdwan  &
\nAnr.,<\/a>  [1964] 4 SCR 921 the petitioner_was detained  by\t the
\norder  of  the District Magistrate under the  provisions  of
\nPreventive  Detention Act, 1950. The order recited that\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary  to
\ndetain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting
\nin a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public  order.
\nThis
\n901<\/span>
\norder  was  served on the petitioner while he  was  in\tjail
\ncustody\t as.  an under-trial prisoner in connection  with  a
\ncriminal case pending against him. It was urged on behalf of
\nthe  petitioner that the detention was not  justified  under
\nthe provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act and as such  it
\nwas  invalid. It was held that the satisfaction of  the\t de-
\ntaining\t authority under section 3(1)(a) is  his  subjective
\nsatisfaction  and as such it is not justiciable. It  is\t not
\nopen to the detenu to ask the Court to consider the question
\nas to whether the said satisfaction of the detaining author-
\nity can be justified by the application of objective  tests.
\nThe  reasonableness  of the satisfaction  of  the  detaining
\nauthority  cannot be questioned in a court of law; the\tade-
\nquacy  of the material on which the said  satisfaction\tpur-
\nports to rest also cannot be examined by a court of law.  It
\nhas also been observed that if any of the grounds  furnished
\nto  the detenu is found to be irrelevant  while\t considering
\nthe  application of clauses (i) to (iii) of Section  3(1)(a)
\nand  in that sense of the Act, the satisfaction of  the\t de-
\ntaining\t authority on which the order of detention is  based
\nis open to challenge and the detention order is liable to be
\nquashed.  Similarly, if some of the grounds supplied to\t the
\ndetenu\tare so vague that they would virtually\tdeprive\t the
\ndetenu\tof his right of making an  effective  representation
\nthat again may introduce a serious infirmity in the order of
\nhis  detention.\t It  has been further observed\tthat  an  an
\nabstract proposition of law, there may not be any doubt that
\nSection\t 3(1)(a) of the Act does not preclude the  authority
\nfrom  passing an order of detention against a person  whilst
\nhe  is in detention in jail but in deciding the question  as
\nto whether it is necessary to detain a person, the detaining
\nauthority has to be satisfied that if the said person is not
\ndetained he may act in a prejudicial manner and this conclu-
\nsion can be reasonably reached by the authority generally in
\nthe light of the evidence about the past prejudicial activi-
\nties  of  the said person. The past  conduct  or  antecedent
\nhistory\t of a person can be taken into account in  making  a
\ndetention order, but the past conduct or antecedent  history
\nof  the\t person,  on which the authority  purports  to\tact,
\nshould\tordinarily be proximate in point of time  and  would
\nhave a rational connection with the conclusion drawn by\t the
\nauthority that the detention of the person after his release
\nis necessary. The detention of a person without a trial is a
\nvery serious encroachment on his personal freedom and so  at
\nevery stage, all questions in relation to the said detention
\nmust  be  carefully and solemnly considered.  The  detaining
\nauthority considered the antecedent history and past conduct
\nwhich  was  not proximate in point of time to the  order  of
\ndetention and as such the detention order was held to be not
\njustified and so the same was set aside.\n<\/p>\n
902<\/span><\/p>\n
    In Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad and\tOrs.<\/a>
\netc.,  [1983] 4 SCC 301 detention orders were served on\t the
\npetitioners  in jail. The detaining authority was  alive  to
\nthe  fact that the petitioners were in jail custody  on\t the
\ndate of the passing of the detention orders as evident\tfrom
\nthe  grounds  of detention. It was stated therein  that\t the
\nposition would have been entirely different if the petition-
\ners were in jail and had to remain in jail for a pretty long
\ntime. In such a situation there could be no apprehension  of
\nbreach of public order from the petitioners. But the detain-
\ning  authority\twas satisfied that if the  petitioners\twere
\nenlarged  on bail, of which there was every  likelihood,  it
\nwas necessary to prevent them from acting in a manner preju-
\ndicial to public order.\n<\/p>\n
    It was held that the pendency of a criminal\t prosecution
\nis  no\tbar to an order of preventive detention, nor  is  an
\norder  of preventive detention a bar to prosecution.  it  is
\nfor the detaining authority to have the subjective satisfac-
\ntion whether in such a case there is sufficient material  to
\nplace  a person under preventive detention in order to\tpre-
\nvent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order
\nor the like in future.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tRamesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and  Ors.,<\/a>
\n[1985]\t4 SCC 232 the order of detention under section\t3(2)
\nof  National Security Act, 1980 was made at a time when\t the
\npetitioner  had\t already been in Mainpur jail as  an  under-
\ntrial  prisoner in connection with certain pending  criminal
\ncases. The grounds of detention were served on the petition-
\ner  along with the order of detention. The petitioner  asked
\nfor certain papers with a view to making an effective repre-
\nsentation but when the request was rejected, the  petitioner
\nmade  a representation. The Board did not accept  the  peti-
\ntioner’s  plea. The petitioner’s detention was confirmed  by
\nthe State Government. This was challenged in the writ  peti-
\ntion.  Apart from specifying five grounds in the grounds  of
\ndetention, a reference was made to the fact that the  detenu
\ncreates public terror on account of his criminal  activities
\nwhich  are  absolutely prejudicial to’\tthe  maintenance  of
\npublic\torder.\tIt was further mentioned  in  the  detention
\norder  that though the petitioner was detained\tin  district
\njail  yet he filed an application for bail in the  court  of
\nlaw and the same has been fixed for heating on September 17,
\n1984, and there is a positive apprehension that after having
\nbail  he will be out of jail and the detaining authority  is
\nconvinced that after being released on bail he will  indulge
\nin  activities\tprejudicial  to the  maintenance  of  public
\norder. It was observed that:\n<\/p>\n
903<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “On a reading of the grounds, particularly the
\n\t      paragraph which we have extracted above, it is
\n\t      clear  that the order of detention was  passed
\n\t      as  the detaining authority  was\tapprehensive
\n\t      that  in case the detenu was released on\tbail
\n\t      he  would again carry on his criminal  activi-
\n\t      ties  in the area. If the apprehension of\t the
\n\t      detaining authority was true, the bail  appli-
\n\t      cation had to be opposed and in case bail\t was
\n\t      granted,\tchallenge against that order in\t the
\n\t      higher  forum had to be raised. Merely on\t the
\n\t      ground  that  an accused in  detention  as  an
\n\t      under-trial prisoner was likely to get bail an
\n\t      order of detention under the National Security
\n\t      Act should not ordinarily be passed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In\tSuraj  Pal Sahu v. State of  Maharashtra  and  Ors.,<\/a>
\n[1986] 4 SCC 378 Sabyasachi Mukharji, J while agreeing\twith
\nthe views expressed in Ramesh Yadav v. District\t Magistrate,
\nEtah & Ors.,<\/a> (supra) observed that the principle  enunciated
\nin the said case would have to be judged and applied in\t the
\nfacts and circumstances of each case. Where a person accused
\nof certain offences whereunder he is undergoing trial or has
\nbeen  acquitted,  the appeal is pending and  in\t respect  of
\nwhich  he may be granted bail may not in  all  circumstances
\nentitle an authority to direct preventive detention and\t the
\nprinciple  enunciated by the aforesaid decision\t must  apply
\nbut  where  the offences in respect of which the  detenu  is
\naccused\t are so interlinked and continuous in character\t and
\nare of such nature that these affect continuous\t maintenance
\nof essential supplies and thereby jeopardize the security of
\nthe State, then subject to other conditions being fulfilled,
\na  man being in detention would not detract from  the  order
\nbeing passed for preventive detention.\n<\/p>\n
    In Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1984] 3
\nSCR  435 at 459 wherein an order of detention under  Section
\n12(2)  of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 198 1 was  served  on
\nthe petitioner while he was in jail as an under-trial  pris-
\noner  in  a criminal case under Section 302 I.P.C.  and\t was
\nallowed to be enlarged on bail by the High Court but not yet
\nenlarged, it was held that:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It is well settled that the law of preventive
\n\t      detention\t is  a\thard law  and  therefore  it
\n\t      should be strictly construed  …. the law  of
\n\t      preventive detention should not be used merely
\n\t      to  clip\tthe wings of an accused who  is\t in-
\n\t      volved in a criminal prosecution.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
904<\/span><\/p>\n
    In\tthe  case of Raj Kumar Singh v. State or  Bihar\t and
\nOrs.,  [1986]  4 SCC 407 Mukharji, J.  observed\t that  while
\nadequacy or sufficiency is no ground for a challenge,  rele-
\nvancy or proximity is relevant in order to determine whether
\nan order of detention was arrived at irrationally or  unrea-
\nsonably. It has been further observed that:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Preventive  detention as reiterated  is\thard
\n\t      law  and must be applied\twith  circumspection
\n\t      rationally, reasonably and on relevant materi-
\n\t      als.  Hard and ugly facts make application  of
\n\t      harsh laws imperative. The detenu’s rights and
\n\t      privileges as a free man should not be  unnec-
\n\t      essarily curbed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In\tBinod Singh v. District Magistrate,  Dhanbad,  Bihar
\nand  Ors.,<\/a>  [1986] 4 SCC 416 at 420-21\tthe  petitioner\t was
\narrested  in  connection with the criminal case and  he\t was
\nalready in custody. The order of detention dated January  2,
\n1986 under Section 3(2) of National Security Act was  served
\non  the\t petitioner in jail. It was observed  by  the  Court
\nthat;\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t …..\tThere must be awareness of the facts
\n\t      necessitating  preventive custody of a  person
\n\t      for social defence. If a man is in custody and
\n\t      there is no imminent possibility of his  being
\n\t      released,\t the power of  preventive  detention
\n\t      should not be exercised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      A\t bald statement is merely an ipse  dixit  of
\n\t      the  officer. If there were  cogent  materials
\n\t      for thinking that the detenu might be released
\n\t      then  these  should have been  made  apparent.
\n\t      Eternal vigilance on the part of the authority
\n\t      charged  with  both law and order\t and  public
\n\t      order is the price which the democracy in this
\n\t      country extracts from the public officials  in
\n\t      order  to protect the fundamental freedoms  of
\n\t      our citizens.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In\tPoonam Lata v.M.L. Wadhawan & Anr., [1987] 4 SCC  48
\nthe court observed that:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The fact that the detenu is already in deten-
\n\t      tion  does not take away the  jurisdiction  of
\n\t      the detaining authority in making an order  of
\n\t      preventive  detention.  What is  necessary  in
\n\t      such  a  case  is to satisfy  the\t court\twhen
\n\t      detention\t is challenged on that\tground\tthat
\n\t      the detaining authority was aware of the\tfact
\n\t      that the detenu was already in custody and
\n\t      905<\/span>
\n\t      yet  he  was subjectively satisfied  that\t his
\n\t      order of detention became necessary.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In\tSmt.  Shashi  Aggarwal v. State of  U.P.  and  Ors.,<\/a>
\n[1988]\t1  SCC\t436 at 440 the detenu was  detained  by\t the
\nDistrict Judge, Meerut by an order dated August 3, 1987 made
\nunder  Section\t3(2)  of National Security  Act,  1980.\t The
\ndetention  order  was approved by the  State  Government  on
\nreceipt\t of the opinion of the Advisory Board. It was  chal-
\nlenged\tby  a  writ petition before this  Court.  The  Court
\nobserved that:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  the instant case, there was\tno  material
\n\t      made  apparent on record that the\t detenu,  if
\n\t      released on bail, is likely to commit  activi-
\n\t      ties prejudicial to the maintenance of  public
\n\t      order.  The  detention order appears  to\thave
\n\t      been made merely on the ground that the detenu
\n\t      is  trying  to come out on bail and  there  is
\n\t      enough possibility of his being bailed out. We
\n\t      do not think that the order of detention could
\n\t      be justified on that basis.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    On a consideration of the aforesaid decisions the  prin-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
ciple  that emerges is that there must be awareness  in\t the
\nmind of the detaining authority that the detenu is in custo-
\ndy  at the time of service of the order of detention on\t him
\nand  cogent  relevant materials and fresh  facts  have\tbeen
\ndisclosed which necessitate the making of an order of deten-
\ntion.  In this case, the detenu was in jail custody in\tcon-
\nnection with a criminal case and the order of detention\t was
\nserved on him in jail. It is also evident that the  applica-
\ntion for bail filed by the detenu was rejected by the Desig-
\nnated Court on 13th May, 1988. It is also not disputed\tthat
\nthereafter  no application for bail was made for release  of
\nthe  detenu before the order of detention was served on\t him
\non 23rd May, 1988. It appears that in the grounds of  deten-
\ntion  there is a statement that at present you are  in\tjail
\nyet  “there are full possibilities that you may be  released
\non bail in this offence also.” This statement clearly  shows
\nthat  the detaining authority was completely unaware of\t the
\nfact that no application for bail was made on behalf of\t the
\ndetenu\tfor his release before the Designated Court  and  as
\nsuch the possibility of his coming out on bail is non-exist-
\nent. This fact of non-awareness of the detaining  authority,
\nin  our\t opinion, clearly establishes  that  the  subjective
\nsatisfaction was not arrive&at by the detaining authority on
\nconsideration  of relevant materials. There is also  nothing
\nto  show from the grounds of detention nor any\tfresh  facts
\nhave been disclosed after the detention order dated  January
\n25, 1988 was set aside by the Advis-\n<\/p>\n
906<\/span><\/p>\n
ory  Board  on\tMarch 13, 1988, on the basis  of  which\t the
\ndetaining  authority could come to his subjective  satisfac-
\ntion  that the detenu, if released on bail will\t indulge  in
\nacts  prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and  as
\nsuch an order of detention is imperative. In the grounds  of
\ndetention  three criminal cases have been mentioned. Out  of
\nthose  three  criminal cases, criminal case No.\t 372\/85\t was
\nlodged on June 26, 1985 i.e. much before the present  deten-
\ntion order and several orders of detention were made in\t the
\nmeantime. This criminal case is, therefore, not proximate in
\ntime  to  the making of the order of detention. So it  is  a
\nstale  ground.\tAnother criminal case No.  456\/87  is  dated
\nOctober 16, 1987 on the basis of which the previous order of
\ndetention  was\tmade. This case has nothing to do  with\t the
\nmaintenance  of public order as it pertains to the  recovery
\nof  a revolver from the detenu on a search of the person  of
\nthe  detenu, without any valid licence under the  Arms\tAct.
\nThe third case No. 2\/88 is dated January 2, 1988. This\tcase
\nwas  in\t existence at the time of making  of  the  detention
\norder  dated  January 25, 1988. Moreover, the  name  of\t the
\ndetenu\tis not in the F.I.R. The statements of some  of\t the
\nassociates of the detenu have been annexed to the grounds of
\ndetention.  These  statements do not disclose  any  activity
\nafter 14th March, 1988 or any activity of the time when\t the
\ndetenu\twas a free person. Considering all these  facts\t and
\ncircumstances we are constrained to hold that there has been
\nno  subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority on  a
\nconsideration  of  the relevant materials on  the  basis  of
\nwhich  the impugned order of detention has been\t clamped  on
\nthe detenu. It also appears that the detenu was in detention
\nas  well  as in jail custody for about\tthree  years  except
\nreleased  on  parole  for short; periods.  The\tonly  period
\nduring which he was a free person was from 14th March,\t1988
\nto  13th April, 1988. During this period no act\t prejudicial
\nto the maintenance of public order has been alleged to\thave
\nbeen  committed by the detenu. It is convenient\t to  mention
\nhere  that Section 15(2) of PASA Act says that\ta  detention
\norder  may be revoked by State Government; but such  revoca-
\ntion  on expiry of detention order will not bar making of  a
\nfresh  detention  order provided where no fresh\t facts\thave
\narisen\tafter expiry or revocation of the earlier  detention
\norder made against such person. The maximum period of deten-
\ntion  in  pursuance  of subsequent  detention  order  cannot
\nextend\tbeyond twelve months from the date of  detention  of
\nearlier\t order. This Court in considering similar  provision
\nin  Section  13(2) of Preventive Detention  Act\t in  Kshetra
\nGogoi v. The State of Assam,<\/a> [1970] 1 SCC 40 at 43 held\t the
\norder of detention as illegal stating that:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    ”  …..   Under Section 13(2)  what  is
\n\t      required is that fresh
\n\t      907<\/span>
\n\t      facts  should have arisen after the expiry  of
\n\t      the  previous detention. Facts arising  during
\n\t      the  period of detention are,  therefore,\t not
\n\t      relevant\twhen  applying-\t the  provisions  of
\n\t      Section 13(2).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It is highlighted in this connection that in the affida-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
vit-in-reply  filed by the respondent No. 1,  the  detaining
\nauthority,  he merely denied the specific averments made  in
\npara  3(III) that no act prejudicial to the  maintenance  of
\nlaw  and order on the part of the detenu is alleged to\thave
\nbeen  committed\t by the detenu between 14th  March  to\t13th
\nApril,\t1988 etc. without specifically denying those  state-
\nments.\tIn this background, a mere bald statement  that\t the
\ndetenu\twho is in jail custody is likely to be\treleased  on
\nbail  and there are full possibilities that he may  continue
\nthe  above  offensive activities without  reference  to\t any
\nparticular  case  or acts does not show on the face  of\t the
\norder of detention that there has been subjective  satisfac-
\ntion  by  the  detaining authority in making  the  order  of
\ndetention in question.\n<\/p>\n
    We,\t therefore, quash the order of detention and  direct
\nthe respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
Y.L.\t\t\t\t\t\t    Petition\nallowed.\n908<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of … on 3 March, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 2265, 1989 SCR (1) 890 Author: B Ray Bench: Ray, B.C. (J) PETITIONER: ABDUL RAZAK ABDUL WAHAB SHEIKH Vs. RESPONDENT: S.N. SINHA, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABADAND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/03\/1989 BENCH: RAY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of ... on 3 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of ... on 3 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-03T00:23:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of … on 3 March, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-03T00:23:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989\"},\"wordCount\":5537,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989\",\"name\":\"Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of ... on 3 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-03T00:23:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of … on 3 March, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of ... on 3 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of ... on 3 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-03T00:23:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of … on 3 March, 1989","datePublished":"1989-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-03T00:23:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989"},"wordCount":5537,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989","name":"Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of ... on 3 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-03T00:23:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razak-abdul-wahab-sheikh-vs-s-n-sinha-commissioner-of-on-3-march-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs S.N. Sinha, Commissioner Of … on 3 March, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98307","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98307"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98307\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}