ANUJ Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 6.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from his illegal detention in pursuance of the order dated 30.4.2015 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Baghpat and set him at liberty forthwith. A further prayer has been made for quashing the impugned order dated 30.4.2015 passed by the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Baghpat (Annexure 6 to the writ petition).

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order as well as the ground of detention reflects that the detention order was passed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner on the basis of his involvement in two criminal cases namely, Case Crime No. 72 of 2014, under Sections -147, 148, 149, 452, 302 and 120B I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 347 of 2015, under Section -506 I.P.C. both registered at P.S. -Kotwali. As far as the incident dated 31.1.2014 was concerned, the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Baghpat was of the view that the daring and diabolic manner in which the petitioner along with the other co -accused, had committed the murder of Satya Pal Singh by lethal weapons with common intention in broad -day -light and thereafter dragged his dead body upto the lane of the village brandishing their weapons, had caused a stampede in the village. People had run away leaving their shops and articles due to fear and hid themselves in their houses. Feeling of fear, insecurity and terror had engulfed the residents of Wajidpur and other nearby areas. An atmosphere of fear and terror pervaded and after sometime angry people came out on the road and blocked Baraut -Binauli -Meerut road totally disrupting the movement of traffic. Public peace and public order was totally shattered in the nearby areas also. The grounds of detention further reflect that despite being in judicial custody the petitioner was putting pressure upon Smt. Sarla Devi through his brother to withdraw the case filed by her against the petitioner or to face dire consequences which had created a feeling of fear, terror and insecurity amongst the informant and the other eyewitnesses of the incident and on the basis of the first information report lodged by Smt. Sarla Devi regarding threats extended to her by the petitioner through his brother Ashwini, Case Crime No. 347 of 2015, under Section 506 I.P.C. was also registered against the petitioner. The Local Intelligence Unit (L.I.U.) had vide report dated 25.4.2014 had reported that on account of the aforesaid incident, the atmosphere of anger and fear had engulfed the nearby villages which had affected the normal life of the residents of village -Wajidpur and other nearby villages. All kinds of rumours were floating in the area on account of which there was possibility of public tranquillity being adversely affected and in case the petitioner succeeded in obtaining bail, the same would adversely affect public order. The petitioner preferred representations before the detaining authority (District Magistrate), State Government, U.P. Advisory Board constituted under the National Security Act and Central Government through Superintendent of District Jail, Meerut. The representations made by the petitioner against the order of detention to the State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Baghpat, U.P. Advisory Board, U.P., Lucknow and the Central Government were rejected.