The preventive detention is an encroachment upon the personal liberty of an individual and cannot be said to be encroached in a casual manner; Moreover, possibility of political influence cannot be ruled out in these cases: Allahabad HC

Harshit Sharma | Amity Law School, Madhya Pradesh | 23rd December 2019

Prem Narayan @ Prem Verma through (Son) Amit Kumar Verma V/s. Union of India Habeas Corpus No. 27130/2019

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The present writ petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 03.07.2019 passed by District Magistrate, Kheri pertaining to Preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 & impugned order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the State Government, for the purpose of issuance of the writ of CERTIORARI & HABEAS CORPUS.
2. The incident in respect of which the order was passed pertains to that of dated 21.03.2019 (the day of Holi festival) it was alleged by the original informants that when they were heading back to their homes after Holi party on their motorcycles, suddenly at 15.30 hrs, the accused persons Prem Verma, Naseem, Pinki Saxena who were already present at the culvert came in front of their motorcycles and stopped them. After hurling the abuses, all the accused persons started firing at the informants by which brother of the informant sustained injury on his left leg.
3. This incident made hue and cry in the area, which resulted all the persons present their to close their shops and run immediately for the sake of safety.
4. The motive or purpose quoted behind the acts of accused person, as pinpointed by the informant was that, the same was the Member of Legislative Assembly and due to their initiation of the task to stop & wither the illegal mining which was being carried in that area.
5. The allegations were countered by the accused persons, on the ground that the detention order was illegal and passed upon the extraneous, invalid and non-existent ground. Further, the order is a clear-cut outcome of the political influence of the MLA associated with the present case.
6. Moreover, a representation dated 16.08.2019 was also made by the accused persons, which gave the specific details of the incident which took place on that day quoting that, ‘The informant and his brother and his numerous supporters were dancing in an inebriating condition and it was the present petitioner, who was assaulted by Shri Yogesh Verma and his supporters, which was captured in the CCTV camera installed nearby’.   
7. Thus, being a case fully made-up the aggrieved approached the Hon’ble High Court for requisite redressal of their grievances.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Preventive Detention order is illegal, extraneous and made-up?
2. Whether the casual nature as adopted by not appreciating the electronic evidence is substantial to quash the order of preventive detention?
3. Whether the presence of political influence is of great concern in the cases similar to that of the present one?

RULING OF THE COURT/ THE COURT HELD THAT

The Hon’ble High Court quashed and set-aside the order of preventive detention, by upholding and observing the following:

1. The preventive detention is an encroachment upon the personal liberty of an individual and cannot be said to be said to be encroached in a casual manner as has been done in the instant case
2. For an act to fall within the category of public order problem, it should be of a nature to disrupt the ordinary tempo of public life. Also, it should be beyond the capability of ordinary law to deal with the alleged activities; in other words, if recourse to ordinary criminal law could have efficaciously dealt with the alleged activities the need to take recourse to preventive detention law does not arise. The facts and circumstances of the present case, especially, the changed version of the detaining authorities fall to establish that the alleged act was one threatening public order
3. That it was clearly seen in the detention order that it was based upon false facts and also that the preventive detention is an encroachment upon the personal liberty of an individual. While saying that the possibility of political influence leading to the passing of the impugned detention order cannot be ruled out, the court also observed that the order shows no application of mind by the detaining authority and that the said authority has acted merely on the basis of the reports of the Sponsoring Authority, wherein the petitioner was referred as a hardened criminal and a mining maa having a gang, which is irrelevant and non- existent beyond doubt.
4. Further, the non-appreciation of CCTV evidence makes it a clear casual nature to falsely implicate the accused persons.

For which the detained persons and set free & order is quashed.