FARID Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. K. Mishra, J. In all the above eight Habeas Corpus Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, common questions of law and facts are involved, hence they are disposed of by a common judgment. In all the petitions, the impugned detention orders dated 7-5-04 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 have been challenged. The impugned detention orders have been passed on the basis of one and the same incident.

(2.) ACCORDING to the F. I. R. , on 16/17. 04. 04 the petitioners named in the F. I. R. were apprehended by the police force consisting of CO. , S. O. and Inspector-in-charge of P. S. Khurja amongst others, in the boundary of Yamin Pahalawan situate near Ganda Nala in the Nat Colony of Islamabad. The petitioners were found slaughtering cows at 12. 30 in the night. From the place of occurrence instruments of slaughtering as also 35 slaughtered cows, one ox, 7 calves and 6 cows in live condition were recovered. Motorcycles, cycles, cloths, shoes etc. were also recovered from the place of occurrence. On the challenge of the police party, the petitioners also fired upon the police force with an intention to kill the police personnel. The news of the cow slaughter spread like wildfire in the area in the morning. The people assembled at the place of occurrence and atmosphere of communal tension gripped the area. The maintenance of public order was badly affected. Additional police force was deployed in the locality. The police could control the situation with much difficulty. In the report of the Station Officer, P. S. Khurja it was stated that the petitioners had formed a gang whose members were involved in slaughtering cows and disposal of their meat, skin, carcasses etc. In these circumstances, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar had subjective satisfaction to pass the impugned detention orders.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, challenged the validity of the impugned detention orders on two grounds. The first ground taken by him is that the present incident gave rise to breach of maintenance of law and order and not public order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be misconceived. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that cow being a sacred and pious animal for Hindu community, its slaughtering certainly gives rise to breach of maintenance of public order. It has also come on record that when the news of the incident spread in the area, people assembled at the spot to protest against the offending act of the petitioners. Communal tension gripped the area. Additional force was deployed in the locality and the administration could maintain peace in the locality with much difficulty. The cow-slaughtering act of the petitioners clearly offended the religious, feelings of a section of the society. It gave rise to communal tension in the area. Thus, we find that the incident created communal tension, adversely affected the even tempo of society and disturbed the public order. Moreover, the daring act of the petitioners in firing upon the police party with an intention to kill police personnel also showed that they were hardened criminal and were terror for the society. In view of the above, we are not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the incident gave rise to breach of maintenance of law and order only.