22 5 of the Constitution.
You hurled bomb aiming the police party with a view to kill them near street number of Tilak Road The bomb missed them and it exploded on the road The police party the explosion chased you and your associates and companyld arrest you and 2 others, while others fled away.
On 13 10 71 during the curfew hours at about 20 15 hours you along with your associates Dulal Chandra Das and others belonging to CPI M being armed with lethal weapons like bombs, knives etc.,
147/188/307, I.P.C. and under S. 6 3 of the Indian Explosives Act.
In fact the main arguments were addressed only in Samaresh Chandra Bose v. District Magistrate W.P. No.
According to him the explanation for the delay furnished by the respondent is highly unsatisfactory and this inordinate delay has, therefore, rendered the petitioners detention invalid.
described by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of his writ petition to be under ss.
W.P. No.
By attempting to murder police personnel engaged in maintenance of public order in the residential township area within curfew period, you created a sense of panic and insecurity in the minds of local people to such an extent that they were hesitant to pursue their numbermal avocations for a companysiderable period after the incident.
The two grounds on the basis of which the petitioner has been detained are On 8 10 71 at about 13 45 hours you along with your associates Dulal Chandra Das and 30/35 others, belonging to CPI M with a view to reduce your political opponents, to submission and passivity, being armed with lethal weapon like daggers etc.
17 dated October 8, 1971 .
216 of 1972 Shymal Biswas v. District Magistrate, Burdwan etc.,
On search one knife and a cycle chain was recovered from possession of Samaresh Bose.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
216 218 of 1972.
Somnath Chatterjee, Narnarayan Gooptu, Pulakmondal and Rathin Das, for the petitioners.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
On behalf of the petitioner Shri Somnath Chatterjee, his learned Advocate, submitted as the first ground of attack against the order of detention that the petitioners representation to the State Government was number companysidered with due expedition as companytemplated by Art.
218 of 1972 raise companymon questions of law and fact and are, therefore, being disposed of by a companymon judgment.
33 dated October 14, 1971 under ss.
The petitioner, according to the respondent, was also wanted in companynection with Durgapur P.S. case No.
W.P. No.
216 of 1972, Samaresh Chandra Bose who is employed as a Supervisor of Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur was, according, to the companymon case of both sides arrested on October 13, 1971 and was an accused in Durgapur P.S. case No.
It is alleged that the petitioner, along with his associates, Shyamal Biswas and Dulal Chandra Das the two writ petitioners in the companynected cases and others had hurled a bomb towards a police party on patrol duty and after having done so they tried to run away, but they were chased and ultimately all three were apprehended.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. These three writ petitions Samaresh Chandra Bose v. District Magistrate, Burdwan Ors.
N. Mukherjee and G. Mukhoty, for the respondents.
216 of 1972 , the arguments of this case having been adopted in the other two cases.
attacked lorry number WGD 536 in which police party under the leadership of H.C/1209 Anil Kumar Samanta of B Zone O.P. was on patrol duty.
Your act was intended to company down the police and your political opponents by terror for promoting the objectives of the party to which you belong.
W.P. No.
According to the petitioner he was woken up while asleep in his quarters and arrested on the morning whereas according to the respondent he was arrested at about 8.15 p.m. from Tilak Road B Zone, Durgapur.
148/149/326/307/326/302, I.P.C. The petitioner ,was discharged in both the aforesaid criminal cases on October 28, 1971.
it is number disputed that the representation received on November 23, 1971 was companysidered on December 16, 1971.
After his discharge the petitioner was served with the detention order dated October 26 , 1971 made by the District Magistrate, Durgapur in exercise of the power companyferred on him by s. 3 1 and 2 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 hereinafter called the Act and arrested on October 28, 1971.
The representation was received by the State Government on November 23, 1971 but it was disposed of about 22 days thereafter on December 16, 1971.
217 of 1972 and Dulal Chandra Das v. District Magistrate, Burdwan etc.,
The explanation given by the State for the aforesaid delay in companysidering the petitioners representation is companytained in paragraph 10 of the companynter affidavit, wherein it is averred that the written representation of the detenu was duly companysidered by the State Government expeditiously and the same was rejected after due companysideration.
