KRISHNA MANGAL SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Krishna Mangal Singh has impugned the order dated 26.7.2002 passed by the first respondent, Mr. Girdhari Lal, District Magistrate, Sitapur, detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 26.7.2002, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 27.7.2002 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to this petition.

(2.) The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu prompting the first respondent to pass the Impugned order against him are contained in the grounds of detention. Their perusal would show that the impugned order is founded on a solitary C.R., namely, C.R. No. 131 of 2002, under Section 302/307/504/34, I.P.C. of police station Sandana, district Sitapur, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 21.6.2002 lodged by Govind Prasad. The details relating to the said C.R., contained in the grounds of detention, in short, are as under : On 21.6.2002, the informant Govind Prasad, a resident of Village Gandhoriya, within the limits of police station Sandana, district Sitapur, lodged an F.I.R. at 9.45 p.m., alleging therein as under : The house of his cousin brother Rishiraj Dixit, is located in the office premises of Co-operative Society, Gandhoriya. In the same premises is the residence of its Secretary Ram Bharosey. On 21.6.2002, at 7.30 p.m., the petitioner-detenu along with his sons Sunder Singh and Shiv Kumar Singh and one Mangroo, son of Prasadi Teli, armed with illicit weapons, came and asked Ram Bharosey to write something on the official letter head. Ram Bharosey refused and asked them to come next morning whereupon, the petitioner-detenu and his associates started abusing him. The informant, his brother Raghuwansh and his father Ram Chandra Dixit asked them to stop abusing. On that the petitioner-detenu and his associates, with a view to kill them, started firing. As a consequence thereof, Ram Chandra Dixit died on the spot and Raghuwansh and Smt. Munni Devi sustained injuries. On their cries, a number of persons came from the village. After the incident, the petitioner-detenu and his associates, went away firing. As a consequence of the aforesaid incident, a fear psychosis was created in the village and people stopped moving, In the grounds of detention, there is also a reference to the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. Their perusal shows that on account of prejudicial act committed by the petitioner-detenu, the even tempo of life of the segment of the community living in the area wherein the incident took place, was affected. To prevent the petitioner-detenu and his associates from committing such acts in future, the detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention that it was imperative to detain the petitioner-detenu and his associates.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Virendra Bhatia, senior advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Jyotindra Misra, Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. B. B. Saxena, senior standing counsel Union of India, for respondent No. 4.