MOHAMMAD SULEMAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Mohd Suleman has been detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as 'NSA', on the basis of order dated 8-4-2001 passed by Shri B.S. Bhullar, the then District Magistrate Kanpur Nagar which was served upon the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention were based upon a number of incidents in respect of which cases have been registered at different police stations. They were Crime Nos. 91 of 2000, 7 of 2001, 20 of 2001,39 of 2001 and 92 of 2001. In the grounds of detention after narrating the facts relating to the aforesaid crime numbers, the District Magistrate recorded his subjective satisfaction that on account of criminal activities of the petitioner and his associates public order of the entire Kanpur District has been disturbed. In the said order it has been also stated that the petitioner was already detained in jail in connection with case crime No. 91 of 2000 under Sections 147,323,336,427 I.P.C. 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 6 United Provinces Special Power Act police station Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar and in case crime No. 20 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 436, 338, 427, 295 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act police station Bekanganj and in case crime No. 39 of 2001 under Section 153A/153B I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act police station Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar and whereas the petitioner has filed applications for bail in those cases whose copies have been annexed as Annexures 26 to 28 and whereas in case crime No. 91 of 2000 the petitioner has already succeeded in obtaining order of bail in his favour from the Court of District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 4-4-2001 and since the detenu was likely to be released on bail in other cases, it was necessary to detain the petitioner under the NSA because if he was released on bail the petitioner would repeat the criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was further stated in the order that hearing of bail applications in case crime No. 20 of 2001 was fixed in respective Courts for 9-4-2001 and 10-4-2001. The grounds of detention were duly served upon the petitioner mentioning therein that the detenu may make representation to the State Government against the said order of detention and the same would be placed before the Advisory Board and before it, the detenu would be afforded opportunity of personal hearing.

(2.) The order of detention has been challenged mainly on following grounds:

(3.) The detaining authority, respondent No. 3 as well as other respondents have filed counter affidavits. On behalf of the petitioner rejoinder affidavit was filed and since it contained some new facts the respondents were given opportunity of filng supplementary counter affidavit. Accordingly respondent No. 3 has filed his own supplementary counter affidavit.