ANAND PRAKASH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 14-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

l 
ANAND PRAKASH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 1989 
[B.C. RAY AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
National Security Act, 1980: S. 8-Detenu likely to be released on 
bail in criminal proceedings-Preventive detention of-Whether per-
missible-Detaining authority's satisfaction must be based on credible 
information-Inordinate delay in making detention order-Whether 
vitzaces the order. 
A 
B 
c 
-t 
The detenu was arrested on May 2, 1989. On the same date a bail 
application was moved on his behalf. On May 3, 1989 he was detained 
under s. 8 ofihe National Security Act, 1980. The detention order stated 
that the detenu was likely to be bailed out and there was every likeli-
hood that after coming out of jail he would again indulge in criminal D 
activities injurious to the maintenance of essential services and supplies 
required for public life. The facts referred to in the grounds of deten-
tion were that on the basis of a complaint of theft of electric wire lodged 
on February IS, 1989 an FIR was registered under s. 379 IPC against 
three persons, 'J', 'S' and 'M'. Some of the stolen material was 
recovered from the house of 'J' on March 3, 1989 and on the informa-
E 
tion provided by him about the purchase of such material the factory of 
the detenu was raided on the same day. There 'M', stated to be the 
servant of the detenu, was found in possession of about 20 kg. of melted 
electric wire and that was seized under a recovery memo. In the confes-
sional statement made by 'M' and recorded in the recovery memo itself, 
he had stated that he had purchased the electric wire from 'J' and 'S' F 
and that he had melted and sold the same to the detenu. These facts led 
the detaining authority to conclude that there was inherent criminal 
propensity in the detenu. Detenu's representation was rejected by the· 
Advisory Board. The Order was confirmed by the Government under 
s. 12(1) of the Act. 
In the writ petition seeking to quash the order of detention, it was 
G 
" 
contended that there was no evidence of detenu's complicity with the 
crime linking him with the recovery of melted wire, that the criminal 
case tiled nnder s. 411 IPC was the first crime alle~ed against him, that 
he had no past criminal record from which it could be inferred that .he 
' ' 
was likely to indulge in such activity in future, and that there W?S an 
H 
479 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1989) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A unexplained delay from the date of the alleged crime and the date of 
detention vitiating the satisfaction and the detention order itself. 
Allowing the writ petition, the Court, 
HELD: I. The detaining authority though can take into account 
B the possibility of the detenu being released on hail in the criminal 
proceedings, have to he satisfied, having regard to his past activities or 
by reason of the credible information or cogent reasons, that if he is 
enlarged on bail, he would indulge in such criminal activities. [487B) 
c 
In the instant case, except the bald statement that the detenu 
would repeat his criminal activities after coming out of the jail, there 
were no credible information or material or cogent reasons apparent on 
the record to warrant an inference that the detenu if enlarged on bail 
would indulge in such criminal activities which were prejudicial to the 
maintenance of essential services. There must be something more than 
what was found in the record to come to the conclusion that this was not 
D a case of solitary incident but a case of the detenu indulging in business 
of receiving stolen electric wires. Furthermore, the detention order 
seems to have been made in order to supplant the criminal prosecution 
which was not permitted. [487B-D) 
Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, [1985) 4 SCC 232; 
E Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr., [1964) 4 
SCR 921; Karlie Chandra Guha v. _The State of West Bengal & Ors., 
[1975) 3 SCC 490; Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad & Ors., 
[1983) 4 SCC 301; Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1988) 
l SCC 436 and N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 
[1989) 4 sec 418, referred to. 
F 
2. In spite of the fact that the recovery statement itself was made 
as early as on March 3, 1989 no action was taken against the detenu till 
May 3, 1989. Nothing more was stated in the detention order. The delay 
had also not been satisfactorily explained in the counter statement of the 
respondents. The ground therefore, could not be a pr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.