YOGENDRA MURARI versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 08-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

YOGENDRA MURARI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
AUGUST 8, 1988 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
B 
Jllational Security Act, 1980: Section 3(2)-Detention Order-
Not to be mechanically struck down if passed after delay-Circums-
tances of case to be ,considered-Allegation that detaining authority 
making detention order for defeating bail order by Court-Considera-
tion of by Court-Deteriorating law and order situation-Witnesses not C 
having courage in assisting the administration of justice by appearance 
in Court. 
The petitioner was involved in two incidents of attempt to murder 
which created a public order problem. In a third incident the petitioner 
with his colleagues killed one person. The party, when challenged, 
D 
hurled bombs and the petitioner tired indiscriminately. This incident 
seriously disturbed public order. Criminal cases were registered against 
the petitioner in respect of each of the three incidents, but the evidence 
against the petitioner was not forthcoming. 
The District Magistrate after considering the relevant circums-
E 
lances came to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to be 
enlarged on b_ail, and since he was_ further of the view that if the 
petitioner was not detained, he would be indulging in activities pre-
judicial to the maintenance of public order, the Districi Magistrate 
made the impugned order of detention under section 3(2) of the 
National Security Act,_ 1980. 
F 
The order of detention has been challenged on the following 
grounds: (1) that only.the third incident could be connected witli the 
public order problem and the mention of the first two incidents in the 
grounds of detention renders the order bad; (2) the order having been 
passed more than four months aft_er the third incident must be set aside 
G 
on the ground of undue delay alone; (3) in view of the fact that the 
petitioner's bail application was not opposed, the District Magistrate 
had no jurisdiction for detaining the petitioner with a view to frustrate 
the Court'•·order enlarging-him on bail; (4) the authority had illegally 
discriminated against the petitioner in detaining him while the others 
!taye been left free; (5) the relevant records were not placed before the 
H 
251 
A 
B 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
District Magistrate before passing the detention order; (6) the copy of 
the application filed at the instance of the petitioner by way of counter 
case was not served on him; and (7) the petitioner's representation was 
not considered and disposed of by the Central Government at all. 
Dismissing the petition, it was, 
HELD: (I) The impugned order could not be struck down 
because the grounds of detention referred to the first two incidents also, 
specially when the first incident appeared to have created a public order 
problem. l255B-C] 
C 
(2) An order of detention has not to be mechanically stru£k down 
if passed after some delay. It is necessary to consider the circumstances 
in each individual case whether the delay has been satisfactorily 
explained, which, in this case, has been done. [255D] 
D 
(3) A perusal of the detention order and of the affidavit of the 
E 
Distriet Magistrate in the instant case makes it abundantly clear that he 
did not act for defeating the bail order. He was of the view that having 
regard to the entire circumstances appearing from the records plac;ed 
before him, the petitioner when let out on bail was likely to create 
public order problem. [256C-D] 
(4) The roles of the petitioner and that of others were not iden-
tical and the reasonable apprehension as to their future conduct must 
depend on the relevant facts and circumstances which differed from 
individual to individual. It would have been wrong on the part of the 
detaining authority to take a uniform decision in this regard only on the 
F ground that the persons concerned were all joined together as accused 
in a criminal case. [256G-HJ 
G 
(5) The detaining authority has denied the allegation that rele-
vant material was not placed before it and there is no reason to disbe-
lieve the said authority. [257A-BJ 
(6) It cannot be presumed that the petitioner was prejudiced for 
non-service of a copy of his own application. [257B I 
(7) The error in. the date referred to by the petitioner was cle_rical 
in nature, and the Central Government, in fact, rejected the peti-
H tionel"'s representation after duly considering it. l257E] 
YOGENDRA MURARI v. STATE 01' U.P. [SHARMA, J

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