UMESH MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Habeas Corpus petitions have been moved by the petitioners challenging the detention orders dated 21st of July, 2005 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petitions), passed under Section 03 of the National Security Act, 1980, by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Brief facts, as narrated in the writ petition No. 13 of 2005, filed on behalf of petitioner Umesh Maheshwari, are that the petitioner Umesh Maheshwari @ Umesh Pahalwan is a named accused in crime No. 1565 of 2005 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity hereinafter the I.P.C.), registered with Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He is in jail in connection with said crime. The role assigned in the First Information Report (for brevity hereinafter F.I.R.) to this petitioner is of exhortation to another accused in the murder of one Manoj Chaudhary, Vice Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad, Kashipur. It is alleged in this petition that the deceased Manoj Chaudhary himself was a man of a shady character and was involved in several heinous crimes. A copy of said F.I.R. is Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. When the petitioner was taken into custody in connection with above crime, he was served with the impugned detention order, on 22.07.2005 through the Superintendent, District Jail, Nainital. The impugned order passed under the National Security Act (Act No. 65 of 1980) is Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. It appears that on 21.07.2005, the detention order was sent to the Government, for its approval. The proposal for the detention of the petitioner Umesh Maheshwari @ Umesh Pahalwan under aforesaid Act No. 65 of 1980 was moved on 14.07.2005 by the Investigation Officer of aforesaid crime alleging that the petitioner is a daredevil and hardened criminal. It was further alleged in said proposal that the petitioner with his associates had committed several offences of murder, attempt to murder, dacoity and robbery. It is also alleged by the Police that due to the criminal activities of the petitioner the public order is adversely affected in the area of police station Kashipur. It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner has been granted bail on 07.09.2005 in the aforesaid crime No. 1565 of 2005. The proposal of the Investigating Officer was approved by the Additional Superintendent of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar and the matter was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar recommending to pass necessary orders under the National Security Act, 1980. Consequently, impugned detention order was passed and served on 22.07.2005 on the petitioner asking him that he may make representation against the detention order. A representation (copy of which is Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition) addressed to the Government, was made by the petitioner Umesh Maheshwari @ Umesh Pahalwan. In his representation, the petitioner has alleged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in number of false cases, time and again, by the police in connivance with one person or the other. It is also alleged by him that he has never been indulged in any activities which caused fear and terror amongst the citizens of the area and had caused public disorder in any manner. It is also alleged in the representation that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind and without any rhyme and reason wrongly implicated him under National Security Act, 1980. It is further alleged that the petitioner was falsely implicated due to enmity in the murder of Manoj Chaudhary and the whole story regarding his involvement in the said crime is baseless and based on wrong facts. Lastly, it was also stated in the representation that the petitioner is a peace loving person and well aware of his responsibilities towards the society. The petitioner Umesh Maheshwari @ Umesh Pahalwan was elected as member of Municipal Board by the people and he was also President of Traders' Association. The petitioner himself is a businessman.