On March 11, 1965, the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was apparently in charge of the investigation made a report to the companyrt to the affect that all the nine persons involved in that criminal Case might be discharged as sufficient evidence for their companyviction companyld number be discovered during the investigation.
In the first place they rely on the decision of this Court in Rameshwar Shaw V. District Magistrate, Burdwan 1 and their case is that in view of that decision the order of their detention and the service of hat order are illegal and they are therefore entitled to release.
30 1 b of the Defence of India Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules , This order was passed by the Government of India and provided that Dugal be detained in order to prevent him from acting in an manner prejudicial to the defence of India, public safety and Indias relations with foreign powers.
Consequently, the magistrate discharged all the nine persons including Sahib Singh Dugal and Jagdev Kumar Gupta petitioners and they were released from jail that very evening.
Rameshwar Shaw was ordered to be detained by an order passed on February 9, 1963.
It appears the besides Dugal, eight other persons were also involved in the case under S. 3 of the Official Secrets Act, including Jagdev Kumar Gupta petitioner in petition No.
56 of 1965.
This order was served on him on February 15, 1963.
It is unnecessary to referred to the facts in the other petition as they are similar except that in the other case the original arrest took place on December 6 instead of December 8.
He was arrested on December 8, 1964 and put in jail as an under trial prisoner for an offence under S. 3 of the Official Secrets Act, Various remands were taken up to March 11, 1965 in companynection with the criminal case against the petitioner.
55 and 56 of 1965.
32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Dugal was then arrested and detained in the Central Jail, Tehar, New Delhi in accordance with the further order of the Government of India under r. 30 4 of the Rules.
Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioners in both the petitions Ganapathy Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent in both the petitions .
Sahib Singh Dugal, petitioner, was employed in the Posts and Telegraph Directorate of the Central Government.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
Petitions under Art.
Immediately after Sahib Singh Dugal came out of the jail, he was served with an order under.
We may set out the facts in one of the petitions namely Petition 55 in order to highlight the points raised on behalf of the petitioners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. These two writ petitions under Art.
