MOHAMMAD AFZAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Mohd. Afzal prays for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the propriety and validity of the order of detention dated 20 June 2003, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the detaining authority') under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the NSA') on being satisfied that the petitioner's detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) The order of detention along with the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner on 20 June 2003. Against the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the NSA. The case of the petitioner, along with his representation was placed before the Advisory Board, who opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 12(1) of the NSA, the Lieutenant Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi confirmed the aforesaid order of detention and directed that the petitioner be detained for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention, i.e., 20 June 2003.

(3.) According to the grounds of detention, which are in the narrative form, the petitioner is an active, desperate, dangerous criminal and a bad character of Bundle/A of the area of Police Station Seelampur, Delhi. He started his criminal activities in the year 1990 at the age of about 19 years and was involved in 18 criminal cases, enlisted in the grounds, such as voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, riots, house-trespass, obstructing public servants from discharging their official duties, criminal conspiracy, criminal confinement, kidnapping, attempt to murder and murder. He was also involved in the offences punishable under the Arms Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Out of the said 18 criminal cases registered against him, the petitioner has been acquitted/discharged in most of the cases. In five cases, he is facing trial and three cases are stated to be under investigation. It is alleged that the prosecution witnesses against him are extremely afraid to depose against him in the Court, which is evident from his acquittal in the cases, where even the injured, the complainants and near relatives did not support the prosecution case and had turned hostile due to intimidation and terrorising tactics by the petitioner. He is stated to be so dangerous and desperate criminal that he has not spared even his father and police officials.