SHAMSHER YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The petitioner has filed the present hebeas corpus petition challenging the detention order dated 25-3- 2005 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Mau, exercising power under Section 3 (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The grounds of detention under Section 8 of the Act as perceptible from Annexure-2 to the writ petition are: (1) Sangram Singh was found roaming with the licenced D. B. B. L. gun and cartidges, which stood in the name of petitioner on 3-3-2004 and he was arrested by Aftab Ahmad Khan, Incharge Inspector, P. S. Mohammadabad Gohana, District Mau. On the basis of the said activity case crime No. 122 of 2004, under Section 25/30 Arms Act was registered against him in which the charge-sheet was submitted on 29-3-2005. (2) Chandra Bhushan Singh @ Bhushan Singh and Rudal Singh @ Rudra Pratap Singh, both residents of village Kyampur have organized a gang, because of land rivalry and on 26-9-2004 at 9 p. m. Shamsher Yadav (petitioner) alongwith his associates Vipul Singh @ Parveen Singh, Chandra Bhushan Singh, Shiv Vachan Yadav, Ram Kasher Yadav, armed with rifle and country made pistol committed the murder of Rudal Singh @ Rudra Pratap Singh (Village Pradhan), Manoj Kumar Singh and Munna Singh @ Tej Pratap Singh and injured an old lady Smt. Nageshari Devi. When these people were sitting at the door of Rudal Singh @ Rudra Pratap Singh. Regarding the said murder a First Information Report was lodged by Manjeet Singh, younger brother of Rudal Singh @ Rudra Pratap Singh, in the same night at 9. 45 p. m. at the police station and case crime No. 667 of 2004, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 IPC was registered against Shamsher Yadav (petitioner) and his associates and later on Section 504/34 IPC was also added. The charge-sheet No. 122 dated 19-12-2004 has been submitted against the accused persons. The crime resulted in a lot of commotion in the village as a result of which an air of fear and terror prevailed and many people left the village Kyampur. Because of the said Act public order was disturbed. The petitioner surrendered in the said crime number on 1-10-2004 and since then he is in jail. (3) It is further mentioned in the grounds that the petitioner, who is detained in District Jail has filed a bail application before the CJM Mau and he is likely to be released on bail and after his release, he is likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) ON these grounds the detention order was passed to desist the petitioner from indulging in any activity prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention on the same day i. e. 25-3-2005 by Deputy Jailor, District Jail, Mau. The petitioner was also informed by the detaining authority, respondent No. 3 that he has got a right to make a representation to the detaining authority and the State Government, Advisory Board and Union of India under Sections 9, 10 and 14 of the Act. The detention of the petitioner was approved by the State Government on 3-4- 2005 under Section 3 (4) of the Act and the approval was sent to the Central Government on 5-4-2005 through speed post as is provided under Section 3 (5) of the Act. The petitioner made representations on 4-4-2005 to various authorities through Jailor, received in the office of the District Magistrate on the same day.

(3.) ON the factual matrix stated above, the detenu has challenged his detention order through his wife Smt. Jyoti Yadav in the instant petition.