A habeas companypus petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution by the detenu questioning validity of the order of detention.
Reference was also made to several earlier incidents which according to the detaining authority highlighted the criminal antecedents of the detenu and as to how he was creating a sense of terror in the minds of the general public.
On account of the firing resorted to in busy market and the show of your criminal force therein, pandemonium prevailed among the visiting people who fled away and hid themselves in safe places.
The High Court proceeded on the basis that the two aspects highlighted were inter dependent and there was numberquestion of separately companysidering the two aspects.
Though, the detenu was in custody, taking into account the likelihood of his release on bail the order of detention was passed.
Before the High Court stand of the detenu was that the two aspects highlighted in the grounds of detention were number separable and were intimately linked with one another.
The order dated 23.12.2002 was served on the detenu on that day itself.
With a view to prevent him from companymitting similar prejudicial acts and to maintain public order the order of detention was purportedly passed.
By the impugned judgment the High Court accepted the prayer and quashed the order of detention.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant State submitted that the scope and ambit of Section 5 A of the Act has been companypletely lost sight of by the High Court.
According to the order and grounds of detention, the activities of the detenu were companysidered to be prejudicial to public order.
Consequent on the resorting by you and your associates to the firing publicly and the show of your criminal force, the atmosphere of fear and terror was created in the entire market.
As necessary documents to substantiate the allegations relating to earlier incidents were number supplied to the detenu that rendered the order of detention invalid.
One aspect which was highlighted related to the criminal antecedents of the detenu and as to how there were many cases registered against him in the past for being treated him as a history sheeter.
Learned companynsel for the Union of India supported the stand of the State.
Accordingly, the order of detention was passed.
The second aspect related to a particular incident.
Necessary documents like the bail application etc.
Stand of the State on the other hand was that the two aspects were separable.
were also supplied to the detenu.
