RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the detention order of the petitioner dated 28-9-2002 passed by District Magistrate, Ballia, respondent No. 2, detaining the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.

(2.) Along with the detention order the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention which stated that on 17-6-2002 at about 10.00 a.m. Neetu Singh, the daughter of Sachidanand Singh of village Makdoompur Beria had gone to the house of her uncle Shambhu to give chaff. While she was returning to her house the petitioner kidnapped her. Report of the incident was lodged by her father Sachidanand Singh at P. S. Beria, on the basis of which a case at Crime No. 91 of 2002 under Sections 363 and 366, IPC was registered. During investigation on 8-7-2002, Km. Neetu Singh told before the Investigating Officer that she was enticed away by gagging her mouth with handkerchief and was taken forcibly in a tempo. On regaining conscious in the night she found herself in a room, where the petitioner and his associates Sanjay alias Padaka and Pramod were sitting and they asked her on the point of knife to keep silence, otherwise she would be stabbed. In her above statement she did not disclose about the mass rape committed by the petitioner and his associates on her to save her honour and future prospects, but in the medical report the commission of gang rape on her was proved. Thereafter Km. Neetu Singh in her further interrogation disclosed that the petitioner and his associates Sanjay alias Padaka and Pramod had illegally detained her on the point of knife in a room in Chhapra, where they committed gang rape on her for three consecutive nights. On the basis of medical report and above statement of Km. Neetu Singh the case was altered under Section 376, IPC. On account of above incident the people of the locality stopped sending their girls to school and people of locality were terror stricken. The public order was badly affected and by their act the petitioner and his associates were affecting maintenance of public order.

(3.) The petitioner was detained in District Jail, Ballia in connection with case crime No. 91 of 2002 and was attempting to get bail. There was real possibility of his being released on bail and on release on bail he would indulge in similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.