# Yogesh Verma (In Custody) v. Superintendent, Meerut & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1374 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2018-09-19 - **Case number:** Corpus Writ Petition No. 390 of 2019 - **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Ravindra Nath Kakkar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogesh-verma-in-custody-v-superintendent-meerut-ors-44352 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote A. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226- Habeas Corpus petition - National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2) - Detention - validity of detention under challenge - logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal - the impugned detention order legally unsustainable - detention order illegal.(Para- 7,9) In this petition, the validity of the detention of petitioner (detenu) has been challenged - He has been detained by the District Magistrate under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - The impugned order of preventive detention was passed against the petitioner while he was confined to District Jail, Meerut on account of his being accused in following fifteen cases - the applicant had not moved any bail application in two out of the fifteen cases pending against him. (Para-2,3,4) Held :- The detaining authority could not reasonably conclude that there was likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail even though no bail application of his was pending. (Para-8) Impugned order set-aside. (E-7) List of cases cited:- ## Text 1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is involved. Absence of the Minister at the Headquarters is not sufficient to justify the delay, since the file could be reached the Minister with utmost promptitude in cases involving the vitally important fundamental right of a citizen. 11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the delay from 9.2.1998 to 14.2.1998 remains unexplained and such unexplained delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu. The corollary thereof is that further detention must necessarily be disallowed. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. We direct the appellant-detenu to be set at large forthwith." 11. From the above judgment of the three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the legal principle which comes out is that if there is a delay in deciding the representation of a detenue the same is to be explained by the concerned authority. It is not the duration of delay, rather cause for delay is relevant. The authority is duty bound to explain delay, if any, in deciding the representation by demonstrating that it was actually necessary for the authorities to work on the same during the intervening period without which they could not have effectively dealt with the representation. A Division Bench of this Court in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 390 of 2019 (Sonu @ Firoz vs. State of U.P. and others) quashed the detention order due to unexplained delay from 22.12.2018 to 27.12.2018 i.e. of 05 days in not submitting the comments / report called for from the sponsoring authority. In the present case from the supplementary affidavit dated 20.01.2020 it is not evident that what was the reason that compelled the officer concerned to call for an independent report from the Central Agency. The delay in deciding the representation for the period 23.08.2019 to 12.09.2019 (19 days) clearly shows that it was without any explanation. 12. Thus we hold that the delay of 19 days in furnishing the independent report by the Central Agency remained unexplained. The officer dealing with the representation of the petitioner acted in a most irresponsible and negligent manner and has failed to account for the reason as to why did he call for the report from the Central Agency. 13. We in view of above discussion are of the considered opinion that the right of the petitioner under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India was seriously infringed, rendering his detention as illegal. The petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 26.07.2019 is quashed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case. No order as to costs. ---------- (2020)02ILR A1374 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J. THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR, J. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 3353 of 2018 Yogesh Verma ...Petitioner(In Custody) Versus Superintendent, Meerut & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, Sri Chandrakesh Mishra, Sri Mohd. Farooq 2 All. Yogesh Verma Vs. Superintendent, Meerut & Ors. 1375 Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.S.G.I., G.A., Sri Narendra Dev Rai, Sri Rajeev Kumar Giri A. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226- Habeas Corpus petition - National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2) - Detention - validity of detention under challenge - logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal - the impugned detention order legally unsustainable - detention order illegal.(Para- 7,9) In this petition, the validity of the detention of petitioner (detenu) has been challenged - He has been detained by the District Magistrate under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - The impugned order of preventive detention was passed against the petitioner while he was confined to District Jail, Meerut on account of his being accused in following fifteen cases - the applicant had not moved any bail application in two out of the fifteen cases pending against him. (Para-2,3,4) Held :- The detaining authority could not reasonably conclude that there was likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail even though no bail application of his was pending. (Para-8) Impugned order set-aside. (E-7) List of cases cited:- 1. Rekha Vs.. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another , (2011) 2 SCC 596 = 2011 (73) ACC 936 (SC) = 2011 (101) AIC 73. (Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.) 1. The argument of this case was concluded on 19.09.2018. We then made the following order:- "Heard Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for Union of India, Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I and Sri J. K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State. We will give reasons later. But we are making the operative order here and now. This habeas corpus writ petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 08.05.2018 passed by respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, Meerut detaining the petitioner u/s 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 is hereby setaside. The petitioner Yogesh Verma (detenu) shall be released forthwith unless he is wanted in any other criminal case." 2. Here are the reasons:- In this petition, the validity of the detention of petitioner Yogesh Verma (detenu) has been challenged. He has been detained by the District Magistrate, Meerut by an order dated 08.05.2018 made under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the NSA). 3. The impugned order of preventive detention was passed against the petitioner while he was confined to District Jail, Meerut on account of his being accused in following fifteen cases namely :- (a) Case Crime No. 365 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506, 336, 337, 427, 332, 353, 342, 143, 34 I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. (b) Case Crime No. 364 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506, 395, 336, 337, 427, 332, 353, 143, 342, 34 I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (c) Case Crime No. 362 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506, 336, 337, 427, 332, 353, 342, 143, 34 I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. (d) Case Crime No. 363 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 143, 332, 353, 336, 337, 436, 342, 395, 34, 427 I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act & Section 3⁄4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. (e) Case Crime No. 358 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 143, 332, 353, 336, 337, 436, 342, 395, 34, 427 I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act & Section 3⁄4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. (f) Case Crime No. 359 of 2018 u/s 25/27/30 of Arms Act. (g) Case Crime No. 360 of 2018 u/s 25/27/30 of Arms Act. (h) Case Crime No. 361 of 2018 u/s 25/27/30 of Arms Act. (i) Case Crime No. 221 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 336, 325, 352, 353, 307, 395, 397, 452, 427, 342, 436, 188, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 3⁄4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. (j) Case Crime No. 350 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 336, 341, 427, 436, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. (k) Case Crime No. 218 of 2018 u/s 395, 397 I.P.C. (l) Case Crime No. 159 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 435, 307, 395, 504, 120-B, 427 I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act & Section 3⁄4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. (m) Case Crime No. 158 of 2018 u/s 147, 184, 149, 353, 435, 307, 341, 352, 120-B, 427 I.P.C. & Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. (n) Case Crime No. 390 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 336, 435, 427 I.P.C. & Section 3⁄4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. (o) Case Crime No. 389 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 427 I.P.C. Apart from the aforesaid cases, following five cases were also shown against the petitioner in the detention order namely :- (a) Case Crime No. 47 of 2012 u/s 332, 353, 186, 188, 127 I.P.C. (b) Case Crime No. 85 of 2012 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354, 34 I.P.C. (c) Case Crime No. 91 of 2012 u/s 126 Ka of Representation of People Act. (d) Case Crime No. 126 of 2012 u/s 127 Ka of Representation of People Act. (e) Case Crime No. 315 of 2012 u/s 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, it is evident from the perusal of the grounds of detention that the applicant had not moved any bail application in two out of the fifteen cases pending against him namely in Case Crime No. 221 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 336, 325, 352, 353, 307, 395, 397, 452, 427, 342, 436, 188, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 3⁄4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act & Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Case Crime No. 359 of 2018 u/s 25/27/30 of Arms Act and hence, the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority in the impugned order 2 All. Yogesh Verma Vs. Superintendent, Meerut & Ors. 1377 that there was possibility of the detenu being released and if released on bail, he was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, is totally vitiated and suffers from non-application of mind by the detaining authority to the material on record and hence, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is liable to be setaside. In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another reported in (2011) 2 SCC 596 = 2011 (73) ACC 936 (SC) = 2011 (101) AIC 73. 5. Per contra Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I submitted that the impugned detention order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity requiring any interference by this Court. She further submitted that there was sufficient material before the respondent no. 2 justifying his belief that in case the detenu was released on bail, he would again indulge in activities disturbing the public order. 6. We have very carefully scanned the impugned order and the grounds of detention and also the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 in this writ petition and we are constrained to observe that the satisfaction recorded by the respondent no. 2 in the impugned order that there was likelihood of the detenu being released on bail despite being fully conscious of the fact that the petitioner had not moved any bail application in Case Crime Nos. 221 of 2018 and 359 of 2018, is in our opinion, wholly unjustified and per se illegal. There was no likelihood of his being released even if he was granted bail in the other six cases pending against him. We stand fortified in our view by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rekha (supra). 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 27 of its judgment rendered in the case of Rekha (supra) has observed as hereunder :- "27. In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is aleady in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most Courts normally grant bail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed." 8. The instant case is not covered under the exception carved out to the general proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rekha (supra). It is nobody's case that in the two cases in which the petitioner had not moved any bail application, any coaccused whose case stood on the same footing, had been granted bail and hence, the detaining authority could not reasonably conclude that there was likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail even though no bail 1378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES application of his was pending in the aforesaid cases. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside. 10. These are the reasons upon which we had set-aside the impugned order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, Meerut. ---------- (2020)02ILR A1378 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J. Misc. Single No. 713 of 2017 Narendra Kumar ...Petitioner Versus A.D.J. Room No. 4 Sultanpur & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Bajrang Bahadur Singh Counsel for the Respondents: --- A. Civil Law-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-O-VIII R-1Petitioners-application for filing W.S-as was not filed-due to the mistake of the counsel-rejected-on the ground of-delay of more than 24 years-O-VIII R-1-provides a period of 30 days-for filing WS-for reasons to be recorded-not later than 90 days-it can be extended only in exceptional circumstances-occasioned by reasons beyond the control of defendant-extention of time-can't be frequently and routinely exercised-petitioner was a party-since beginning-a literate person-fully aware of the proceedings-no convincing or cogent reasons-to justify delay. Petition Dismissed. B. Held, suit filed by resps. In the year 1990. More than 26 years have passed since the dat of institution of the suit.the petitioner was a party in the said suit from the very beginning, but he failed to file any WS. The petitioner is a literate personand is working as a lekhpal, and as such he was fully aware of the on going proceedings. The petitioner had full opportunity to file his WS but he chose not to do the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware about the suit. There is no convincing or cogent reason provided by the petitioner for not filing his WS for such an extremely long period of time, and therefore, at this distance of time, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file WS. List of cases cited:- Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N vs UOI 2005 (6) SCC 344 (Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order date 19.11.2015, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Room No. 15, Sultanpur, in Regular Suit No. 258 of 1990 (Hari Prasad and another v. Ram Autar and others) and the order dated 24.08.2016, passed by the Additional District Judge, Room No. 4, Sultanpur, in Civil Revision No. 124 of 2015 (Narendra Kumar Nikhar v. Hari Prasad and others). 3. The basic facts of the matter are not in dispute. On 09.11.1990, the plaintiffs - Hari Prasad and Kamla Devi, respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein, filed a suit (Regular Suit No. 258 of 1990 in the court of District Judge, Sultanpur) against Ram Autar and his three sons namely Ravindra Kumar, Virendra Kumar and Narendra Kumar, for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regards to House No. 98, situated at MohallaShahganj, Murari Das Ki Gali, ParganaMeeranpur, Tehsil & District Sultanpur.