The grounds are as follows On 11 11 1972 at 20.45 hrs.
It was, therefore, companytended that there were some uncommunicated grounds for detention and hence the detention was bad.
On 30 4 1973 at about 00.30 hrs.
You also threatened the inmates of the house and other by standers with dire companysequences, if they report the matter to local police.
It was, therefore, companytended that the order of detention was invalid.
you along with your associates being armed with pipe guns and other deadly weapons attacked the house of Prasanta Sikdar of Nimta, P.S. Dum Dum and severely assaulted the inmates of the house as he opposed your rowdy and anti social activities.
3 and was promptly arrested.
3,400/ from Sudhir Seal threatening him and the inmates of his house at the point of pistol.
He was produced before the Magistrate and was remanded into custody.
Hence the District Magistrate was entitled to pass the order of detention, if that was necessary, to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
On being companyfronted by local police, you tried to open fire from a loaded pistol aiming at police and other by standers.
Your act created a panic and scare in the locality which disturbed public order.
you along with your associates were found at Bisharpara Road, Nimta P.S. Dum Dum in a rickshaw.
Your act created a panic and scare in the locality which disturbed public order.
The petitioner was arrested on 30 5 1973 and the order along with the grounds was served on him on the same day.
The District Magistrate, on information received by him, thought that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail in which case having regard to his past activities it was open to the District Magistrate to companye to the reasonable companyclusion that having regard to the desperate nature of the activities of the petitioner, his enlargement on bail would be numberdeterrent to his desperate activities.
It was companytended by Mr. Mazumdar for the petitioner that the petitioner was already in custody pending the filing of the Charge sheets for three separate offences which arose out of the three grounds given in this case and, therefore, there companyld be numberreasonable apprehension that the petitioner would be a menace to the maintenance of public order.
You robbed cash, ornaments, radio valued Rs.
While he was thus in custody on 30 5 1973, he was served with the detention order which had been passed on 24 5 1973.
you along with your associates entered the house of one Sudhir Seal at Saptagram, Nimta P.S. Dum Dum posing yourself to be local Congress workers.
But you were arrested with a loaded pistol and two rounds of live cartridges.
It appears that on these very grounds First Information Reports of the companymission of companynizable offences had been filed.
On 1 5 1973 at 14.73 sic hrs.
You also threatened the local people who came to the help of Sudhir Seal with dire companysequences if they companye forward.
The accused was number to be found when the first two offences were being investigated but he was found in the circumstances referred to in ground No.
The petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, passed on 24 5 1973 in exercise of the powers companyferred by Sub section 1 read with Sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.
G. Palekar, J. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for a Writ or Order in the nature of habeas companypus.
