LexDARPAN KUMAR SHARMA @ DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...
~
r
,f!/_/i I.;.{
:/.~il.}i .f
1 /'<r".-:.j}ftJ f(J t-; ·1·,.
·, /j_)j ,,'.f.•
~JI I-~
A/\
,:DARPAN:rKUMARiSf!ARMA1@ 1 DHA.1~BAN :~UM,A..R~SHARMA
BH
iii .,:10! nA rn111Jkfl::l'llWU ti~>ld• !>i :, V.;, ·.:.'.,-;·; .-ul L Jll!"J:~·- 1q sun t i;r1 Jnslhqot
t;111; :Jui::"'; m·J~&T.j\.J:;E .OFcJAiyUL-:NA.OiJrAND1.0R.&: !w11n ,,,/fiJWJ :ra11u'1
~i rJ:..il(!·,,
,'~OiJ11~;~ '!, u
f:...
rn;d uf
i~Jd .... 1
1 :• 0 ~
1nc~r~ il>f" b!,1orf,., ~ // .'J1tit·.,,; JnJ
''·' ,f) ::d1 tif:F d.)!;'i ,di lA~JJ,AR)/' 1:20 •. '.:2:993,lii Ir. t/.::: ,; Jll1 t- .,. l •:1
f ·) I
'"t.JLJ JO.• <!:..P-1 f{;,c.)t ;~t ~f'.,: 1 JjJ'·:;t!j ~~::'.t. ... n .. Jrl:.! .Hr.: JI'"'.. 11,;j•./.
<..J~·~:}f!j •M,-~fr:"CL)
,~J~.)y\JJ:~QM .. ~e.~~ 1.~P~r~,-¥~~~b T.i~M~;rwpg~.J.V j~() l:>i!
t,;LJ .!1~,.n~ !Jfl5 ?t:i!!:.>1 'Jfh Lf·;c.·r!"l 01 ·:Ji/Qr~:,:~, --.J1;af 2{R·lltr; ("j~UOJ :;d~ .i"'.;~:.:.11r_) {
+
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 21, 22(2) and 32/Tamil Naaif-··
Pr~y~'}:~i'!r!;,PJ;P.ffngerq,~, ~g~!ti~i!s !Jof.if}ppfj~gg<;!§~.c:lJr!!.~'"o/Jg!'fi.e~fo ff.orest
C ) 0flf!~d.t;rs~:1 Q,'?,~'J<f.<!f.;_,f.'!J.'!1.'l;~'!J .J.~flff},c,pfl~'!<f.'frf,: l!,'?!!, §f;u'!J r~!:?Mrtf ;A;%: I?~~~· H
Sectwns 2(f), 3 and 3(2):
.,,
-·• .,., ,.,; .. ,,.1 c.,-1· •Ir.·,.-. 11
, ,,, J ·ri·
1
t.~~_,_•{~J :....,.
,
,,Jll-.
,.J
f.~l.r .J!.i!
,;;!.,
~.1'~1 •JJ!
J
r l~1:ITT'.!!~{!°Y<;.1 ffefention of accused-Challenge to-Writ Petition-H,els{._f'
When a wrongful act committed by the accused, the degree and extent of such
act and its effect upon the Society is judged to come to the conclusion whether
D such act was likely to cause disturbance of public order-Preventive detention
of accused is not justified on a solitary instance of pelting stones against
public while committing robbery-Direction for release of detenu ordered-
Penal Code 1860; Section 379.
Petitioper-accused was an under trial prisoner, he having committed
E offences of theft and robbery. The competent authority (detaining
authority) passed an order of detention against accused under Section 3
of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Drug-offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders and
Slum grabbers Act, on the ground that he pelted stones against public
.F
while committing offence and his release on bail would be prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. Hence the present writ petition.
It was contended for the petitioner that since it was a solitary
instance of robbery which was not of such magnitude and intensity having
any effect of disturbing the public order, right to life and liberty of detenu
G was violated by the preventive detention order.
On behalf of the State, it was submitted that the detenu pelted stones
against the public and created scare after a committing the offence of
robbery. and to prevent him from indulging in such activities, he was
detained; and that his release on bail would be prejudicial to the
H maintenance of public order.
442
..
D.K. SHARMA.v. STA TE OF TAMIL NADU
443
Allowing the writ petition, the Court ·,
A
HELD: I." Any disorderly behaviour of a person 'in the public or
commission of a criminal offence is bound, to some extent, affect the peace
prevailing in the locality and it may also affect law and order but the same
need not affect maintenance of public order. The.question whether a man
has' only committed a breach of la~ and order or· ti~s 'a~ted in ~. ma
0nner . B. 1
:.
-
.••.
,.
'
'
'·
l
.
)j
, 1
•
'
·-
-
'
..
likely to.cause disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and
th~ ext~nt of the r~ach of the a~i upon the society; that a solitary assault
on' one individual ca~ hardly be said to disturb publi~ peace or place ~ubli~
ord;r in'j~opardy so~s to bring the ~ase within tbe'purView of the Tamil
:;...
.
,
'
'
. I
.-
.
~
.
. .
•
.
.
Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, C
Forest offenders, Goondas, tmmoral traffic ~ffenders and slum grabbe,.;.
·,
~
J
·• .
I
.
'
-
'
'
.
•
ACt providing for preventive detention. [445-D, F)
... ,
. a
.
2. In the instant case, the three alleged incidents of th~fts arising
under 'section 379 of Indian Penal Code h·ave been referred and there is
.
' ,
:
.
.
only a solitary instance wherein the detenu is alleged to have rol/bed one . D
perso~ in a public place. There is no material on record to show that the
reExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.