YOGENDRA MURARI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has by the present application under Article 32 of the Constitution challenged the order of his detention dated 7-12-1987, passed under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. Earlier he, had unsuccessfully moved the Allahabad High Court under Article 226.

(2.) The District Magistrate has mentioned three incidents in the grounds served on the petitioner:(i) the petitioner is alleged to have fired with his revolver at one Sri Azam with the intention to kill him but he narrowly escaped. As a result of this attack at 5.00 P.M. on 17-12-1986, according to the detaining authority, "terror spread over in the entire area and all the shopkeepers who had their shops in the nearby locality closed down their shops out of panic and fear. This incident created a public order problem;" (ii) the petitioner is said to have made another bid on 21-6-1987 to kill another person named Aziz who also narrowly escaped; and (iii) on 27-7-1987, at about 7.45 P.M. the petitioner with his colleagues killed Shri Aziz in front of the Lucknow District Jail. The persons who were present there ran away out of fear. The Jail Authorities returned the fire and the petitioner then threw a handgrenade. On being challenged again, the party hurled bombs and the petitioner indiscriminately fired from his pistol. This incident seriously disturbed the public order. The details of the panic which struck the locality are mentioned in the grounds.

(3.) Criminal cases were registered against the petitioner with respect to each of the three incidents but it appears that evidence against the petitioner was not forthcoming, although several persons supported the prosecution version of the third incident dated 27-7-1987 by their statements recorded under S. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner was, however, in custody and moved an application for bail. The District Magistrate after considering the relevant circumstances came to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to be enlarged on bail by the Criminal Court and since he was further of the view that if the petitioner was not detained, he would be indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention was made.