SAUD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 25/06/1999, passed by respondent No. 2 District Magistrate, Aligarh under Sec. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as 'Act', under which petitioner has been detained.

(2.) Along with impugned order of detention, petitioner was served the grounds on which basis detaining authority formed his subjective satisfaction for detaining petitioner under the Act. The allegations contained in the grounds against petitioner are that on 18-5-1999 at 1.25 P.M. he participated in dacoity in which 4 lakhs rupees of Palasallu branch of State Bank of India were looted, while it was being loaded on Jeep No. W.R.A. 2217, for being deposited in the main branch of the State Bank of India. In this incident, security guard of the bank and one Netra Pal Singh, another employee of the bank were injured and S.B.B.L. gun of the guard was also looted. It is stated that petitioner along with his 6, 7 companions armed with firearms, attacked the employees of the bank and after causing injuries, snatched the box containing cash and made their escape good on four motorcycles displaying the firearms. In respect of this incident, a first information report was lodged which was registered as Case Crime No. 136 of 1999, under Sec. 395/397 I.P.C. at Police Station Gabhhana, district Aligarh. It is also stated that on account of this incident, the bank employees, customers and the people in general were put under intense fear and terror. The bank employees and its customers persons present in nearby DHABAS (roadside hotel), out of fear ran helter-skelter and public order in the area was totally disturbed. On account of this broad day light incident of looting of the cash of the bank, after injuring the employees, the residents of the city at Aligarh also developed a feeling of insecurity. After serious efforts made by the police, petitioner was arrested on 1/06/1999 with a country made pistol. On interrogation, he confessed his involvement in the aforesaid case of bank dacoity. At the pointing out of the petitioner, 20,000/- rupees belonging to the bank were also recovered.

(3.) In the ground, it has been further alleged that the petitioner is confined in District jail, Aligarh in connection with the aforesaid case. He has filed bail application and possibility of his being released on bail cannot be ruled out. It has been further stated that if petitioner is released on bail, he shall again indulge in similar activities, which shall be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and in order to prevent petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, it is necessary to make an order that he be detained.