SMT. BIMLA RANI versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 25-09-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. BIMLA RANI 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
B 
National Security Act, 1980: Section. 3-Detention-Detenu in 
jail in a case registered under Section 307 1.P.C.-Detention Order-
Based on solitary incident, but gave rise to communal tension and 
apprehension of communal riot-Whether valid and legal. 
A detention order under sub-section (2) read witb sub-section (3) 
of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 was passed against th!' 
detenu on the ground that the detenu, who was in jail in a case 
registerd under Section 307 IPC was trying for release on bail, and 
tber¢ was every possibility of bis being released, and that be was likely 
to indulge in activities prejudicial to public order and public life. The 
order was confirmed by the State Government on the report of the 
Advisory Board. 
In a Writ Petition filed in this Court it was contended that as the 
grounds of detention did not disclose any past history of any crime by 
c 
D 
the detenu, nor was there any material on record to show that the 
E · 
incident referred to in the grounds would be repeated in future, the 
detention order based on a solitary incident and on an apprehension 
that the detenu was likely to act prejudicially to the interest of public 
order, in the event of bis being released on bail, was illegal. 
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court, 
F 
HELD: When an incident was such that it created communal 
tension and the authorities were apprehensive of the breaking of a 
communal riot, such incident in itself may be sufficient, and may afford 
justification for the satisfaction of the detaining authority for the deten-
tion of the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such 
G 
activity prejudicial to public order even though there is no antecedent 
act of similar nature or past history of commission of crime by the 
detenu. [246C-D] 
fn the instant case, the situation tbat emerged as a result of the 
incident was grave and serious and. prejudicially affected public order. 
11 
241 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E· 
F 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
It may be a solitary incident but it gave rise to commnnal tension and 
there was apprehension of a commnnal riot. The police report on the 
incident is a sufficient material for the subjective satisfaction of the 
detaining anthority that there was distnrbance of tranquality and 
harmony of pnblic life. The detaining authority had taken into con· 
sideration all the circumstances including the grave and serious situa· 
tion that emerged as a result of the incident. There were cogent 
reasons apparent on the face of the record for justifying the order of 
detention. [245H; 246A-B] 
· 
Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, [1983] 3 SCR 939 
and Ayya v. State of U.P. and another, (1989] l SCC 374, relied on. 
Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, (1985] 4 SCC 232 and 
Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and others, (1988] l SCC 436, 
referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal} No. 296 
of1989. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India}. 
U.R. Lalit, Mrs. Rani Chhabra and Ms. Meera Chhiba for the 
Petitioner. 
B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General, Yogeshwar Pd., Ms. Socha· 
rita, Ms. A SubhasMni, Dalveer Bhandari, Ms. Rachna Joshi and 
Rachna.Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DUTT, J. In this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion of India, the mother of the detenu, Shri Praveen Kumar Gupta, 
has prayed for the quashing of the detention order of her son dated 
May 6, 1989 passed under sub-section (2) read with sub-section (3) of 
section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, as confirmed by the order 
G 
dated May 11, 1989 of the State of U .P. on the report of the Advisory 
Board. There is also a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ in the 
nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release the said 
Praveen Kumar Gupta forthwith. 
The grounds of detention, as communicated to the detenu by the 
B District Magistrate, Meerut, are as follows: 
. ' 
.,_ 
SMT. BIMLA RANI v. U.0.1. [DUTT, J.] 
243 
"That on 30.4.89 at about 9.15 P.M. at Delhi Road, 
Kesarganj, P .S. Delhi Gate, Meerut, you along with your 
other accomplice with the common intention tn kill Babli 
showing your wrath gave him a gun injury and also 
threatened to give gun shot to those persons who came in 
his rescue. On the basis of information give

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