HAROON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Haroon and Haneef have filed this petition chal lenging the order dated 8-7-1999 passed separately against both the petitioners by District Magistrate, Mathura (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, under which they have been detained.

(2.) COUNTER-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Learned Counsel for the par ties have agreed that this petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.

(3.) WE have considered the submis sion so learned Counsel for the parties. However, we are satisfied that the petitioners are entitled for the relief on short ground that the detaining authority failed to record satisfaction with regard to the possibility of the release of petitioners from custody on bail. As both petitioners were in jail, at the time the impugned order of detention was passed against them, it was obligatory on the detaining authority to record satisfaction before passing the im pugned orders, that there was likelihood of release of the petitioners on bail from judicial custody. Without recording such satisfaction the impugned orders of detention could not be passed as there could not have been any apprehension against the maintenance of public order from the petitioners, who were in jail.