KHALIL AHMAD Vs. SECRETARY HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of detention (Annexure-I) dated 27.2.1998 passed by the respondents under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act (Act No. 65 of 1980) is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The grounds pressed at the time of hearing, to challenge the impugned order were:

(3.) Reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner on the decision in Ajay Dixit v. State of U.P. and Others, MR 1985 S.C.18, in support of his contention that there has been no involvement of the petitioner in any case within a period of six months prior to the date of detention order. Stale incidents cannot be a valid ground for sustaining detention. On the second ground of challenge, reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner on the decision of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Ishtiaq Hussain Khan v. State of U.P. and Others, 1986 CRL.J.1448, holding that where the criminal activities of the detenu, on the basis of which the detention order has been passed were directed against a particular set of persons and did not trouble the community at large, such acts are only a breach of law and order and cannot be held to be serious enough to disturb the public order. In addition, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner has been a victim of circumstances. The father of the petitioner was shot dead by some dacoits when he went to rescue the daughters of his neighbours from the clutches of dacoits. For this act of bravery, the petitioner's father was posthumously awarded by the President of India. The untimely death of the petitioner's father in the unnatural circumstancesshattered the petitioner completely and subsequently the career of the petitioner was ruined by the atrocities and high handedness of the police officials of Lahori Gate and other Police Stations of Delhi. He had already been acquitted in 11 cases and discharged in 2 cases. Trial in remaining cases was pending. Only in 3 cases he was convicted or bound down. He was falsely implicated in all the cases and had not been named in various F.I.R. Material before the authority was not sufficient to warrant justifying issuance of detention order.