TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (9) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blic order. The grounds of detention supplied to the petitioners are in identical terms and they are as follows: "1. That on 15/16.10.82, at about 2.30 A.M. the subject alongwith Jadunandan Sah and 3 others went to Khudia Colliery and dragged one Shri Ram Briksh Chauhan who were witnessing a cultural programme and started assaulting him in presence of large gathering who were there to see the cultural programme. This created great panic and alarm in the area and adversely affected the public order. Hearing the cry, Mussafir Chauhan came there but seeing the subject and his associates engaged in the assault of his brother started running away for his life. The subject and his associates, with an intention to establish criminal supremacy and to kill him threw two bombs on him, resulting in grievous injury to Mussafir Singh. This adversely affected the public order and persons who were witnessing the cultural programme started running helter and skelter for their lives. This refers to Nirsa P.S. Case No. 189 dated 6.10.1982 u/s 307/34 IPC, 3/5 Explosive Sub. Act. Thus the subject acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 2. That on 8.11.82, at about ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Bilas Singh. Their intention was to kill him because he did not participate in the strike in the colliery. In the first information report regarding the other. incident under ss. 307/34 IPC and ss. 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act it was alleged that on the night of 15/16th October 1982 around 2 A.M. the petitioners were beating the brother of the informant near a school, where some function was going on. On seeing the petitioners in the company of others the informant started running but he was chased by others and a bomb was thrown at his back but he escaped. But Alijan Mian, the petitioner, threw another bomb and the informant was injured at his back and fell. The said persons intended to kill him. The petitioners in both the cases were later on granted bail but the two criminal cases mentioned above are still going on. By an order dated 13th December, 1982 the Government approved the detentions order and informed the petitioners by letter dated 30th December, 1982 of the reference of their representation to the Advisory Board asking them to appear in person before the Board. The petitioners appeared in person before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board eventually gave ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings for preventive detention could not go together, it may be pointed out that preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence while the criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. They are not parallel proceedings. In the circumstances the pendency of a criminal prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention, nor is an order of preventive detention a bar to prosecution. It is for the detaining authority to have the subjective satisfaction whether in such a case there are sufficient materials to place the person under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order or the like in future. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon K.M. Chokshi v. State of Gujarat(1) in support of the contention that in view of the criminal prosecution of the petitioners for the two incidents, proceedings for the preventive detention were uncalled for. In that case the Court after an analysis of the various cases cited observed: The principles energing from a review of the above cases may be summarised in the following way: The ordinary criminal process is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinguished from a wide spectrum of the public, it would raise a problem of law and order only. These concentric concepts of 'law and order' and 'public order' may have a common 'epicentre', but it is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror-wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps distinguish it as an act affecting 'public order' from that concerning 'law and order'." Applying the well-settled law on the question we have to determine whether the two incidents make out a case of 'law and order' or 'public order'. It was for the detaining authority to have the subjective satisfaction that there was apprehension of breach of public order from the petitioners. In one incident one of the petitioners threw a bomb in a large gathering where a cultural programme was going on at the dead of night whereupon the public started running helter and skelter to save their lives. That will in our opinion make out a case of 'public order' in as much as it disturbed the tranquillity and the even tempo of life of th....