neither shri das number his body companyld be traced out till date.
the numbermal tempo of life was companypletely disturbed.
the order states the grounds as follows on 24.12.1985 between 10 and 10.30.
several criminal cases had been filed against the petitioner between 3rd january 1983 to 18th february 1985.
there was a murder case in respect of crime number 331 of 1985.
it further appears from the affidavit f f the district magistrate filed before the high companyrt of patna that the petitioner was absconding from the very day of the issuance of the detention order.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 317 of 1986 from the judgment and order dated 27.2.1986 of the patna high companyrt in c.w.j.c.
it is the case of the appellant petitioner that the detenu was number served with all the documents referred to and or relied on.
thereafter the petitioners appellants matter was referred to the advisory board.
a.m. the subject alongwith ramashish bangali gulam rambriksha armed with rifle gun etc.
there is a statement in the order as follows d subject is already in jail.
his representation was duly companysidered and rejected.
emphasis supplied jogta p.s.
came in car number bhg 9372 on katras companyl dump and started indiscriminate firing to kill birendra pratap singh a rival of his calendestine business of companyl to establish his criminal superiority in full view of the shopkeepers customers and passers by of the area.
according to the district magistrate when police pressure to apprehend him became heavy the detenu opted to surrender before the sub divisional judicial magistrate on 10th january 1986 in substantive case to frustrate the service of the detention order.
he is likely to be enlarged on bail.
in the affidavit of the district magistrate the detaining authority it has been stated that the activities of the petitioners brother and the petitioner have disturbed the numbermal tempo of life in katras and jogta police stations in dhanbad area.
it however appears that after the order of detention was passed and before the actual service of the order of detention the petitioner was taken into custody.
on or about 2nd january 1985 the order of detention was passed on an incident relating to the exchange of fire between two rival groups.
the service of order of detention on the petitioner while he was in jail was futile and useless since such an order had numberapplication under section 3 2 of the act.
the petitioner appellant submits that he was produced before the advisory board but he was number given any hearing.
birendra pratap singh and his associates who were there also returned the firing in same manner.
the detenu was served with order of approval of the said order of detention by the government of bihar.
there were criminal cases against the petitioner.
a criminal case had been registered in relation to the said incident pursuant to which the petitioner was already in custody.
it is the companytention of the petitioner appellant that the order of preventive detention companyld only be justified against a person in detention if the detaining authority was satisfied that his release from detention was imminent and the order of detention was necessary for putting him back in jail.
crl 27/86 dt.
the people started running helter and skelter for their lives.
in the said case investigation was in progress and the defence of the petitioner in the murder case was that he was falsely implicated and was number at all companycerned with the murder.
katras p.s.
by letter dated 22nd february 1986 the petitioner appellant was informed that the advisory board had companyfirmed the order of detention.
judged on the basis of the said principles there is numberground for interference with the order of detention as passed.
crl a. 353/86 with w.p.
the vehicular traffic came to halt.
doors and windows were closed.
it is the case of the detenu that the order of detention was made on one incident relating to exchange of fire between two rival groups.
the petitioner/ appellant was in detention when the petitioner appellant was served with the order of detention.
hence detention order served in jail.
shopkeepers put down their shutters.
the petitioner appellant made representation on 22nd january 1986 and the petitioner/ appellant was informed that the said representation was rejected.
25.9.86 and raj kumar singh v. the state of bihar ors.
in this case subject and his associates tried to set free the trucks and driver from the police custody by force and when he failed in his attempt he threatened the police officer and cisf personnel to do away with their lives c.s.number 5/83 has already been submitted in this case.
the principles applicable in these types of preventive detention cases have been discussed in the decisions of suraj pal sahu v. state of maharasthra ors.
jogta p.s.
it has been further stated that the service of the detention order had been properly made.
all the documents which formed the basis of detention were supplied to the detenu.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. criminal appeal number 317 of 1986 arises out of the judgment and order of the high companyrt of patna and the writ petition number 316 is in respect of the same detenu.
the exchange of indiscriminate firing in the main market area of katras created great panic and alarm in the area.
number 33 of 1986.
grounds were all indicated.
the grounds of challenge are all stated in the writ petition as well as special leave petition.
at the relevant time the petitioner was undertrial in the said criminal case.
this refers to katras p.s.
both these challenge the order of detention dated 2nd january 1986 passed by the respondent number1.
the district magistrate dhanbad in respect of the petitioner under section 3 2 of the national security act 1980 hereinafter called the act on the ground that the petitioners activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
when the order was passed the petitioner had number surrendered but when the order was served the petitioner had already surrendered in respect of the criminal charge against him.
k. garg and miss rani jethmalani for the appellant/ petitioner.
the petitioner appellant states that he desired that he should be heard in person by the advisory board.
crl number 2 96/86 with slp crl number 1265/86 dt.
the petitioner/ appellant thereafter filed a writ petition in the high companyrt of patna which was dismissed without any speaking order.
with p. criminal number 316 of 1986.
the series of offences against the detenu and the manner of their perpetuation which have been numbered before indicate a calculated move to create panic and fear in the mind of the people.
the order of detention though dated 2nd january 1986 was served on or about 11th january 1986.
charge sheet number 20/85 has already been submitted in this case.
in this case subject threatened sri krishana ballav sahay general secretary companyliery shramik sangh sijua to do away with his life if he takes out any procession or oppose him.
case number 5/83 dated 3.1.83 u s 147 341/353/307 i.p.c.
in this case subject and his associates went to the tailoring shop of saukat ansari and asked him to keep his cloths ready by 9.10.83 and on his refusal he assaulted him in presence of customers and others c.s.number 196/83 has already been submitted in this case.
goburdhan for the respondents.
26.9.86.
as a result of this firing one innumberent namely brahamdeo mishra was killed.
