RAM PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Jain, J. The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 23-1-2002 passed against him by respondent No. 2 District Magistrate, Bulandshahr under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and his continued detention thereunder.

(2.) THE grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. THE detention order was passed on the basis of an FIR of Crime No. 360 of 2001, inter alia, under Section 302 IPC, registered at P. S. Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr, the related incident of which took place on 25-11-2001. One Hari Mohan son of Badri Prasad was murdered by Vikas with his three associates by firing while he (victim) was returning from Jahangirabad to Surkharu at about 3 p. m. and had reached near his village. One she-buffalo had also been injured in the incident. THE firing was allegedly resorted to on the witnesses also who escaped unhurt. THE deceased was the grand-son in relation of the informant Charan Singh resident of the same village. THE assailants had allegedly run away with the licensed revolver, cartridges and scooter No. DL 4 S. /p. 9945 belonging to the deceased. THE petitioner is said to be associated with the said crime.

(3.) IT is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the grounds relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the detention order in question are not at all related to public order. They could, at best, simply raise the question of law and order. The detention order has been passed by the authority concerned without application of mind, saying that the petitioner was attempting to be bailed out and on coming out from jail on bail he would indulge in such activities which may be prejudicial to maintenance of public order. IT has also been pointed out that he was not named in the first FIR relating to the incident of 25- 11-2001 concerning the murder of Harimohan. On the other hand, the argument from the side of the State is that the matter certainly pertains to public order and the acts of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the same.