JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.
1.Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-detenu Vijay Prakash Misra alias Darhi Misra has impugned order dated 7-9-2002 passed by the second opposite party Sri Suresh Chand Sharma, District Magistrate, Pratapgarh detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.
The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 7-9-2002, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 7-9-2002 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.
2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu which impelled the second opposite party to issue the Impugned order against him are contained in Annexure No. 2 (grounds of detention). A perusal thereof would show that the impugned order is founded on three CRs. lodged at P. S. Sangramgarh, district Pratapgarh, namely:--
(i) C. R. No. 59 of 2002 under Sections 302/506. I.P.C. lodged on 11-6-2002 on the basis of a complaint lodged by Achutanand:
(ii) C. R. No. 10/A of 2001 under Sections 323/504/506, I.P.C. lodged on 15-8-2001 on the basis of complaint lodged by Abhyanand Dwivedi; and
(iii) C. R. No. 120 of 1999 under Sections 147/341/336/352/323/188/427. I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act registered on 7-8-1999 on the basis of a complaint made by, Maan Singh, S.H.O., Police Station Sangramgarh district Pratapgarh.
Since in our Judgment a reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu contained in the said C.Rs. is not necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, we are not adverting to them.
3. We have heard learned counsellor the parties.
It is common ground between them that on 7-9-2002, the date when the impugned detention order was issued by the second opposite party against the petitioner detenu, the latter was in custody in C. R. No. 59 of 2002 under Sections 302/506, I.P.C. of police station Sangramgarh, district Pratapgarh (referred to above). It is well-settled that a detention order can be issued against a person in custody provided the detaining authority shows his awareness in the grounds of detention that the person sought to be preventively detained is in custody. There is no dearth of authorities on this point and to eschew prolixity, we are only referring to one of them, namely. Dharmenda Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1196. Paragraph 19 of the said authority reads, thus:--
"19. The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention: and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities."
A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would make it manifest that the first prerequisite enjoined by law for passing a detention order against a person in custody is that the detaining authority should show his awareness in grounds of detention that the person sought to be preventively detained is in custody.
4. In the instant case, apart from the fact that the learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the said awareness was missing in the grounds of detention, we satisfied ourselves by perusing the grounds of detention and make no bones in observing that the detaining authority has not shown his awareness therein that the petitioner detenu was in custody in the said C. R. Consequently, in our view, on the said ground alone, this writ petition deserves to succeed.
5. We would be failing in our fairness if we do not mention that Mr. Janardan Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 strenuously contended that it is not open for us to allow this writ petition on the ground that the detaining authority has not shown his awareness in the grounds of detention that the petitioner-detenu was in custody in C. R. No. 59 of 2002 of police station Sangramgarh, district Pratapgarh because the said ground has not been pleaded in the petition nor taken as a ground of challenge in the grounds on which the detention order has been assailed in the petition.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of Mr. Janardan Singh and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in it, in this connection, we feel it pertinent to advert to two decisions of Supreme Court, namely, those rendered in the case of Harish Pahwa v. State of U. P., AIR 1981 SC 1126 and Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1983. The ratio laid by the Apex Court in paragraph 2 of the former decision and in paragraph 4 of the latter is that the principles of 'strict pleadings' do not apply to Habeas Corpus petitions and if the material for adjudication of a ground is available, then the mere circumstance that the ground has not been pleaded in the petition would be no impediment in the way of the Court in considering it.
7. For the said reason we reject the submission of Mr. Janardan Singh.
8. In the result, we allow this writ petition; quash the impugned detention order; and direct that the petitioner-detenu Vijay Prakash Misra alias Darhi Misra be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case.