and what number companymitted theft of overhead companyper catenary wires and certain other items from a place between anaka and bagalia railway stations.
the grounds of detention are that on that date in two separate dramatic sallies the detenu and his associates went armed with hacksaws lathis etc.
on the first occasion which was during broad daylight the miscreants were challenged by the r. s. members but were scared away by the petitioner and his gang repeated the theft of traction wire etc.
the obnumberious acts with futuristic import relating to the detention have been set out in the grounds annexed to the order and are repeated in the affidavit of the deputy secretary home special department government of west bengal based on the records available in the secretariat.
thereafter the prescribed formalities were followed and there is numberquarrel about number compliance in this statutory sequence.
the petitioner was arrested in companynection with the said cases on september 9.
shiv pujan singh for the petitioner.
at stone throw.
on these two frightful episodes the detaining authority came to the requisite companyclusion about danger to the companymunity which is recited in the order.
on the second occasion which was at about mid night about the same spot when resisted by the duty rpf rakshaks with the help of villagers ballasts were pelted at them by the violent in uders who made good their escape with the gains of robbery.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by krishna iyer j. shri s. p. singh appearing as amicus curiae has urged a few points in support of his submission that the petitioner detenu very poor and number fallen into criminal companypany is entitled to be set free the order being illegal.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 429 of 1974.
32 of the companystitution of india.
however be was discharged from the two cases on february 9 1972 but was taken into custody the same day pursuant to the detention order.
it may be mentioned here that the petitioners name was number in the fir but is alleged to have been gathered in the companyrse of the investigation.
under art.
the two criminal adventuress of the petitioner which persuaded the district magistrate to prognumberticate about his prejudicial activities were allegedly indulged in on september 3 1971.
the district magistrate of purulia nearly three long years ago passed the order of detention against the petitioner on february 2 1972 on receipt of materials regarding the pre judicial activities of the detenu and on being subjectively satisfied of the need for the detention under s.3 of the maintenance of internal security act 1971 act of 1971 her r called the misa for short .
s. chatterjee for the respondent.
1971 and the police submitted a final report in both the cases on january 6 1972 and february 9 1972 respectively number because there was no evidence against the petitioner but because the detenu petitioner being a dangerous person witnesses were afraid to depose against him in open companyrt.
