JAVED ALIAS RINGBAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this peti ­tion, petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 30 -6 -1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), under which petitioner has been detained.

(2.) ALONG with the impugned order of detention petitioner was also served the grounds on which basis detaining authority formed his satisfaction for detaining the petitioner under the Act. There are total four grounds, which show that petitioner was involved in criminal activities. The oldest case is of 30 -5 -1994 (ground No. 4) in which it has been alleged that petitioner and his companions entered the police out post and damaged the motor cycle of Sub Inspector, A.R. Siddiqui and also looted Government property. In this connection case crime No. 144 of 1994, under Section 395 Indian Penal Code was registered. Another criminal case registered against the petitioner was case crime No. 74 of 1995, under Sections 147,148,149 and 307 Indian Penal Code (ground No.1) in respect of which allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner tried to kill one Babloo by throwing bomb on him. In this incident passers -by and other persons present there were injured. In this case petitioner was convicted and sentenced for 7 years RI by the Sessions Court on 4 -12 -1997. Against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge appeal has been filed in this Court .and petitioner obtained bail.

(3.) THE last case registered against the petitioner mentioned in ground No. 3 is of 25 -10 -1998, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. It has also been mentioned in the grounds that petitioner has applied for bail in the Court and petitioner may be released on bail at any time and if he is allowed to come out on bail he shall indulge in similar activities, which shall be prejudicial to the main ­tenance of public order. On the aforesaid grounds the detaining authority recorded his satisfaction that in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary that he may be detained under the Act.