ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved against the order of detention dated 27.11.2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, the petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing the writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The grounds of detention disclose that on 14.11.2000 at 9.05 a.m., an information was received by the police, through some body that at mill gate No. 98B, a passenger train, which was going to Lakhimpur, was stopped by some of the workers of Subhas Sena having red banners in their hands and were creating disturbance. On receiving such information, an entry was made in the case diary and Inspector incharge Shailendra Kumar along with other police personnel reached the spot to maintain peace. During that period, the Station-Master informed that Train No. 172 down was standing at mill gate crossing, upon which certain persons were throwing stones. Another information was also received by the police that on the same day some persons armed with various weapons like lathi, danda, ballam and even sword stopped the train and they were hurling stones. On this activity, the passengers including ladles, children and old people started crying. The traffic was dead-locked. They were shouting that the train be burnt. A case at Crime No. 305 of 2000 under Sections 141, 145, 151 and 174 of the Railways Act was registered against the accused persons. It was also stated that the processionists also assaulted some of the passengers of the train and created such an atmosphere that the people started running here and there.

(3.) The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is firstly that it was simply a law and order problem that a train was stopped and some passengers were assaulted and beaten and due to intervention of the police, the train was allowed to move after half an hour. It is not such a case where public order can be said to have been disturbed warranting invocation of Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. We need not delve into that question because the writ petition can be decided on other aspects as well.