# Jail) v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 422
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 43233 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.K. Agarwal, V.S. Bajpai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jail-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40107
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Detention Order-Challenged-Plea of law
and
Order
and
Public
Order-Major
difference between the two-discusseddetention order the result of misuse of
power by the Police personnel-highly
condemsed direction issued to release by
forthwith.

Held- Para 14 sa

It is now well realised that the line of
demarcation between 'law and order'
and 'public order' is very marginal. Any
act of violence that creates an offence
naturally poses problem first to law and
order. Every offence necessarily does not
come within the purview of 'public order'
by
virtue
of
it
being
an
offence
committed by an individual or a group of
individuals. It would fall within this clan
if its ramifications have the capability
and potential to disrupt the peace and
tranquility of that area wherein the
offence was so committed. If it, by its
very
nature,
succeeds
in
causing
disruption in normal mode of living and
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Bandoo Bedia and others V. State of U.P. and others
423
even tempo of the society unhesitatingly,
it is liable to handle sternly under these
preventive laws. The act would be clearly
barred by the connotation 'public order'.
The presence is in evident and its fall
out,
we
are
convinced
lacks
this
qualification.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
422
prima facie on an examination of the
record submitted by Sri Vinod Swarup,
learned Additional Advocate General to
the Court. We do not desire to direct any
harsh measures ourselves against any
errant
officer
who
held
both
the
preliminary
enquiries
ourselves.
We
instead seriously advice the learned Chief
Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh to
examine the reports submitted in this case
himself and to consider as to whether the
affairs of the State can be run in such a
casual and lackluster manner. Has the
government of this State decided to play
with the life of the youth of this nation
who are trying to become medicos to
serve the masses, the manner in which the
matter has been dealt with is most
deplorable. We take serious notice of it.
The learned Chief Secretary is requested
to review the whole issue after going
through the record including the so called
preliminary reports and order to hold de
novo enquiry on the allegations on which
regular enquiry had been completed. The
Government is directed to take the
necessary steps to fill up the vacancies
lying
unfilled
in
legal
manner
immediately. Such stop-gap arrangements
must come to an end forthwith in all the
Medical Colleges of the State.

34. With these observation, petition
stands dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 9.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE V.S. BAJPAI, J.

Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Petition No.
43233 of 2002

Bandoo Bedia and others ...Petitioners

 (Detenue/In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.N. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh (Sr.S.C.)
A.G.A.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Detention Order-Challenged-Plea of law
and
Order
and
Public
Order-Major
difference between the two-discusseddetention order the result of misuse of
power by the Police personnel-highly
condemsed direction issued to release by
forthwith.

Held- Para 14 sa

It is now well realised that the line of
demarcation between 'law and order'
and 'public order' is very marginal. Any
act of violence that creates an offence
naturally poses problem first to law and
order. Every offence necessarily does not
come within the purview of 'public order'
by
virtue
of
it
being
an
offence
committed by an individual or a group of
individuals. It would fall within this clan
if its ramifications have the capability
and potential to disrupt the peace and
tranquility of that area wherein the
offence was so committed. If it, by its
very
nature,
succeeds
in
causing
disruption in normal mode of living and
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Bandoo Bedia and others V. State of U.P. and others
423
even tempo of the society unhesitatingly,
it is liable to handle sternly under these
preventive laws. The act would be clearly
barred by the connotation 'public order'.
The presence is in evident and its fall
out,
we
are
convinced
lacks
this
qualification.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Agarwal, J.)

1. There are eight writ petitions
connected with each other. Civil Misc.
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 43233
of 2002, therefore, is treated as principal
case. It was preferred by Bandoo Bedia
son of Ralli Bedia. Other petitioners are
Bhagoni alias Bhagwan alias Bhagwan
Das alias Bhagone, Raghav Bedia, Pappu
Bedia, Gabbar Bedia, Vijay Bedia, Raj
Pal Bedia and Kallu Bedia.

2. An F.I.R. was registered as case
Crime No. 135 of 2002 against the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 43233 of
2002 and nine others under Sections
147/148/149/307/323/353
I.P.C.
and
Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment
Act at P.S. Madawara, District Lalitpur.

3. The facts of the F.I.R., as
disclosed in the grounds of detention, are
that on 10.6.2002 at about 4.45 p.m. in a
Mela (fair) which was going on in village
Rangaon near Moti Mandir, Pappu Bedia,
the brother-in-law of the petitioner, was
exhibiting unpleasant behaviour towards
females. He was asked to desist from his
misconduct by three policemen present in
the Mela. He did not stop his unlawful
activities with the female members
present
in
the
fair.
Consequently
constable Vimlendra Singh, Karim Khan
and Head Constable Ram Prakash Tewari
took him into their custody. When they
were proceeding with Pappu Bedia to the
police station, the petitioner along with
his other companions started belabouring
them near a Imli tree with Sariya, Lathi
and dandas with an intent to kill the
constables. He managed the release of his
brother-in-law, Pappu Bedia, who in turn
also joined this petitioner in the assault of
the constables. Constable Vimlendra
Singh sustained injuries on his head and
hand. There was disturbance in the fair.
People started running helter-skelter. The
shopkeepers downed their shutters and
started fleeing from the fair premises. The
entire fair was completely disturbed. The
people living in the vicinity had closed
their doors and confined themselves
within the four walls of their houses. The
public order allegedly was completely
disrupted. On the arrival of other police
personnel in the fair, the petitioner along
with his companions and the released
accused Pappu Bedia fled from the spot.
Constable Karim Khan lodged the report
of this incident, as earlier reported. Case
Crime No. 135 of 2002 under the
abovesaid sections was registered. It is
also alleged in the grounds that the
petitioners withdrew from the spot by
resorting to firing. The people became so
panicky and afraid of the petitioner Pappu
Bedia that nobody was prepared to state
the truth or make any statement in court,
though the policemen had all along been
trying to checkmate the growing influence
and the terror of this petitioner by their
frequent visits of the village. Additional
force was also deployed in the region for
the above said purpose.

4. The Investigating Officer, on his
return to the police station on 11.6.2002
from the investigation, had also made
some entry in G.D. No. 25 at 8.20 p.m. to
this effect. The petitioner was arrested on
14.6.2002 and remanded to jail thereafter.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
424
5. A proposal for detention of the
petitioner
was
mooted
by
S.H.O.
Hargovind Verma of P.S. Madawara,
District Lalitpur. The report of the Circle
Officer attached to this proposal also
indicates that this petitioner is a hazardous
person and nobody feels himself secure
from him in the society. The public does
not dare to challenge him, nor they are
prepared to make any statement against
him either to the police or in the court.
The report of the S.P. submitted along
with the proposal of the S.H.O. shows that
the petitioner has made an application for
his release before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mahrauni, Lalitpur,
on 18.6.2002, which was to be heard on
that very day in addition to. There are
every possibility of his immediate release.
On being released on bail the petitioner,
according to these reports, is likely to
indulge into his nefarious activities and he
may commit some serious offence, which
may cause disruption of the public order.
Along with the proposal the sponsoring
authority has forwarded life history and
criminal antecedents of this petitioner as
also others petitioners apart from the copy
of the F.I.R., copy of General Diary
Report No. 22 dated 10.6.2002 at 5.30
p.m., copy of General Diary Report No.
25 at 8.20 p.m. made by S.H.O. on his
return from the investigation of this case
on 11.6.2002, copy of the spot inspection
report and statements of the witnesses,
police and public, recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. to the District Magistrate for
initiating action under Section 3 of the
National Security Act.

6. The bail application filed by the
petitioner on 18.6.2002 was rejected by
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mahrauni, Lalitpur, on 18.6.2002 itself. A
copy of the bail application was also
produced before the concerned District
Magistrate, but the rejection order was not
filed, though the proposal was sponsored
on 20.6.2002. It is also a fact that no
further bail application was filed either
before the Sessions Judge or before this
Court by the petitioners.

After receipt of the report along with
the proposal from the Superintendent of
Police, Lalitpur, on 21.6.2002 the District
Magistrate, Lalitpur, on the same day
passed the impugned order of detention
for a period of one year under Section 3
(2) of the National Security Act against
the petitioner. The order was served upon
the petitioner on the same day in District
Jail through the Superintendent of the Jail.
So the petitioner's detention commenced
with effect from 21.6.2002.

7. After the detention order was
passed by the District Magistrate, the
papers were submitted to the State
Government, which had approved his
detention by its order dated 28.6.2002. All
the relevant papers were forwarded along
with the detention order viz., grounds of
detention and other connected papers by
the State Government to the Central
Government on 1.7.2002. It was received
by the Central Government on 5.7.2002.

8. The petitioner submitted a
detailed
representation
through
the
Superintendent, District Jail, Lalitpur, on
3.7.2002 for the District Magistrate,
Lalitpur, to consider the same. The
District Magistrate, Lalitpur, called for
the comments from the Superintendent of
Police on the representation of the
petitioner.
The
S.P.
submitted
his
comments on the representation on
6.7.2002.
The
representation
was
forwarded to the State Government and
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Bandoo Bedia and others V. State of U.P. and others
425
the Central Government by the District
Magistrate, Lalitpur, on 9.7.2002. The
State Government received the same on
10.7.2002.
On
11.7.2002
the
representation
along
with
parawise
comments were sent to the U.P. Advisory
Board. The State Government rejected the
representation of the petitioner by its
order dated 15.7.2002, communication of
which was made to the petitioner on
16.7.2002 in District Jail, Lalitpur.

9. The petitioner was summoned by
the Advisory Board and he appeared in
person before the same on 24.7.2002. The
Advisory Board expressed its opinion that
there are ground for detention of the
petitioner on 6.8.2002 for consideration of
the
State
Government.
The
State
Government
communicated
through
radiogram and letter dated 19.8.2002 that
the
detention
of
the
petitioner
is
confirmed for a period of 12 months with
effect from 21.6.2002. On 14.8.2002 the
representation of the petitioner was
rejected.
The
information
was
communicated to him by the State
Government on 28.8.2002. Rejection of
his
representation
by
the
Central
Government was also communicated to
the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the
petitioners
has
made
following
submissions that this detention is based
upon a solitary case. The entire incident
does not give rise to any disturbance to
the public order and tranquility, the
incident is squarely covered under law
and order and the sponsoring authority
being badly biased by the assault on the
police personnel of the police station had
mala fidely sponsored for the detention of
the petitioner and his other family
members and associates on false and
cooked up facts. The facts averred about
the character and antecedents of the
petitioner were totally false and concocted
as
revealed
from
the
history-sheet
furnished along with the proposal by the
said authority. He has also submitted that
this is the only case against the petitioner
and 7 other petitioners on the basis of
which they were detained.

11. The occurrence is dated
10.6.2002. The bare facts were already
detailed in the preceding paragraphs. The
allegations that the petitioner bears a
hazardous character and is infected by
criminality and his criminal activities
have created a terror amongst the people
living in the area and none is there to defy
him or make a complaint to the police or
the court are ingenious fabrication by the
sponsoring authority. The sponsoring
authority or other senior police officer,
who recommended for the detention of all
the petitioners on these facts know that
none of them bear any such character. The
mother of Pappu Bedia is a celebrated
dancer. She is a renowned Folk dancer of
Bundelkhand. They are keeping alive the
tradition and heritage. They are expert
performers of Rai Nritya (dance) and
Shera Nritya. They have been performing
these dances through out the country and
State capitals. They have also performed
these dances on national day celebrations,
like Republic Day, 15th August, 26th
January, etc. Smt. Phoola Devi was
honoured many a times by the President
of India and Prime Minister, late Sri Rajiv
Gandhi. The present petitioner is a
student. Smt. Phoola Devi and two other
females were also members of local Zila
Panchayat. Smt. Phoola Devi convene and
manages the local weekly fair at Moti
Mandir in her village Rangaon. On
10.6.2002
she
left
the
village
to
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
426
participate in a marriage celebration in her
family. The management of the fair was
left by her in the hands of Pappu Bedia
and the petitioner. These three police
personnel, who were allegedly assaulted
by these petitioners and some others were
themselves making indecent gestures and
vulgar comments against the village
women who were presenting dance
performance
near
Jhoola.
Petitioner
Pappu Bedia objected to their indecent
behaviour. He tried to desist them from
repeating the same. On this, these three
policemen got enraged and started hurling
abuses upon him. They caught and
assaulted him. He was forcibly dragged to
a lonely corner. He was beaten there also
by Dandas, whereupon he shouted for
help and these policemen thereon were
attacked by the local public gathered in
the fair. They had got Pappu Bedia
liberated
from
their
clutches.
The
policemen left for the police station
extending serious threat to ruin the life of
the entire village. A false case was
registered in order to teach the villagemen
including
the
petitioner
and
other
petitioners in the connected writ petitions
a lesson for mastering courage to desist
them from their misdeeds. The defence is
corroborated by complete absence of any
criminal antecedents against all these
petitioners. We have examined the
antecedent chart. Since these people who
belong
to
traditional
folk
dancing
community they and their women are
treated with contempt. The policemen
were no exception to it.

11. The averments made in the
proposal by the sponsoring authority to
the contrary, it is contended seriously,
were imaginary and fabricated in order to
punish these young and old petitioners in
all these writ petitions, a lesson for their
life, so that they may never act against the
police even if the men in robe were
behaving in a manner prejudicial to the
social interest and dignity of these
females. The last submission is that the
orders were passed post-haste without any
application of mind by the District
Magistrate.

12. In our opinion, the facts adverted
to above do not make out any case of
disturbance
of
public
order.
The
disturbance caused by the assault on the
policemen in the fair did not cause any
disturbance to the public order. The fair
was organised by Bedia community in
their own village. The conduct of Pappu
Bedia, as alleged in the F.I.R., in the
circumstances,
does
not
inspire
confidence that he was misbehaving with
the females of his own community or of
neighbourhood. Most of them were
related closely to these petitioners. In the
circumstances, the averments made in the
proposal and accepted by the detaining
authority, as fostered by the S.H.O.,
Circle Officer and the S.P., Lalitpur, in
our opinion, were flimsy, made up, and
tailored only to punish these young men,
the petitioners in these impugned petitions
for mustering courage to teach these
constables who were drunk with the
power and had forgotten that there are
females in their own families as well. The
females ought not to be looked in
derogation if they belong to down-toearth class. The females of the dancer
community, therefore, are no public
property to be misbehaved or shown
disrespect
to.
As
earlier
discussed,
members of the Bedia community would
not show such gesture or conduct, as
alleged against Pappu Bedia in the F.I.R.
because fair was mostly inhabited and
visited by the members of the same
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Bandoo Bedia and others V. State of U.P. and others
427
community or females of the nearby
villages. The mother of Pappu Bedia
being a female of high status in the
National Art Gallery being a reputed Folk
dancer of the country would not allow any
one of them to misbehave indecently in
the fair. Pappu Bedia must also be
conscious that it would damage their
business interest adversely. Some of these
accused petitioners are also equally
reputed dancers and athletes or sports
persons. The behaviour alleged against
them by the policemen does not impress
us at all. These facts were not discussed
by us by way of any criticism of the
charges on merit, or by way of any
assessment
of
the
activity
of
the
sponsoring authority. We are discussing
them in regard to the factum of
application of mind by the District
Magistrate. The speed with which the
entire proceedings were drawn and the
detention orders were clamped on these
petitioners, leaves hardly any room to
doubt that there does not exist any
application of mind by the detaining
authority to the facts of the case. We are
conscious fully that this satisfaction is
only subjective and not objective, but
subjective satisfaction could not be
arrived at without scrutinising the charges
levelled by the sponsoring authority in the
proposals against these petitioners. These
facts were discussed by us in this light.
Thus, we are convinced that the entire
proceedings were completed within two
days, i.e. on 20th and 21st June, 2002. On
20th June the proposals were fostered
against these petitioners by S.H.O.
Hargovind Verma of P.S. Madawara,
District Lalitpur. Both the officers, Circle
Officer and the Superintendent of Police,
slapped their reports on the proposal on
20th June itself. Armed with these reports
the proposal was submitted to the District
Magistrate on 21.6.2002. Post-haste, as it
is, the order of detention was passed in
this case against these petitioners on the
same day. They were served also
promptly. It clearly puts the facts allsquare. Where was the time for the
District Magistrate to apply his mind? All
these authorities were motivated clearly
by the fact that men in robe suffered
humiliation at the hands of people of base
traditions and culture. It was hurting their
pride.

13. Apart from these, as earlier
discussed, there is no longevity in the
disruption of the fair by the act
complained of. If we accept them
verbatim, as alleged by the sponsoring
authority and accepted by the District
Magistrate, the disturbance was not so
potent as to cause any disruption to the
public order of the area and its tranquility
which may entitle the detention of these
petitioners under the National Security
Act, 1980. Whatever disturbance was
caused, was momentary and the police
force, in all probability, was not rushed to
maintain the public order but was rushed
to the Mela area to quell these Bedias
who tried to desist the policemen from
treating callously the females in the Mela
area and when the policemen tried to
make a vulgar show of their authority,
they were made to suffer humiliation. It
appears to us a case of offenders trying to
punish those who probably acted in
defence of the honour of their women
folk. One of them lodged a tailored report.
Therefore, we do not find in the activities
of these petitioners any disturbance to the
public order or disruption of the public
tranquility of the area. The arm and reach
of their act and conduct, in our opinion,
was very short-lived. Therefore, in our
opinion, it was clearly a law and order
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
428
problem and do not pose any threat to the
public order and public tranquility of the
area, as alleged in its proposal by the
sponsoring authority.

14. It is now well realised that the
line of demarcation between 'law and
order' and 'public order' is very marginal.
Any act of violence that creates an
offence naturally poses problem first to
law and order. Every offence necessarily
does not come within the purview of
'public order' by virtue of it being an
offence committed by an individual or a
group of individuals. It would fall within
this clan if its ramifications have the
capability and potential to disrupt the
peace and tranquility of that area wherein
the offence was so committed. If it, by its
very
nature,
succeeds
in
causing
disruption in normal mode of living and
even tempo of the society unhesitatingly,
it is liable to handle sternly under these
preventive laws. The act would be clearly
barred by the connotation 'public order'.
The presence is in evident and its fall out,
we are convinced lacks this qualification.

15. The questions raised in this
petition and answered by us equally cover
the other seven petitioner's cases as well.
Dates of detention in their cases are a few
a days later though facts and submissions
remain the same.

16. In view of these facts and our
findings, these petitions are allowed. The
petitioners, who are under detention, shall
be released forthwith if not otherwise
wanted in any case.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20449 of 2003

Ram Chandar

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy
Director,
Consolidation,
Azamgarh and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sankatha Rai
Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai
Sri Vijay Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Singh
Sri A.P. Singh
Sri Anuj Kumar, Addl. S.C.
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Article
226-
Limitation Act 1963 Sec-5-Time barred
appeal filed after 16 years-Consolidation
Court Condoned delay-challenged two
validity of the said orders

Held- Para 9

In the present case the explanation
given by the respondent as noted above
is satisfactory and the exercise of
discretion by the Assistant Settlement
Officer of Consolidation in condoning the
delay, cannot be said to be arbitrary,
capricious, or ultra vires. Explanation
given for condonation has been noted by
the
Assistant
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation in his judgement and he
having found them satisfactory no case
has been made out for interference
under Article 226 of Constitution by this
Court.
Case law-
1. 1998 R.D. 18 S.C.
2. 1996 A.W.C. 1018
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in