RAMESH KUMAR UPADHAYAYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, through the present writ petition, has challenged his detention order under section 3(2) of The National Security Act 1980 (herein after referred to as the Act), passed by District Magistrate, Varanasi respondent No. 2, on 30-4-2005, annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

(2.) The grounds of detention which were served on the petitioner indicate that Ajit Kumar Jain, resident of 221, Jawahar Extension. Bhelupur, District Varanasi is the father of Anmol Jain, aged about 13 years, a student of class VI of St. John's School, Maduadhih District Varanasi. On 14-3-2005 his driver Ram Prasad took Anmol Jain to school and was bringing him back in a Maruti Zen car UP 53 P 5821, when at 3 P.M., near the FC1 godovvn a white Tata Sumo overtook them and the occupants of Tata Sumo abducted them (Anmol Jain and Ram Prasad driver). Ajit Kumar Jain, father of Anmol Jain, lodged a report at police station Maduadhih District Varanasi at 3.35 P.M. regarding the said abduction as crime number 66 of 2005 under section 364 IPC vide GD No. 40. The news of abduction was flashed by wireless and RT sets by the police to the higher officials and to all officers in charge of various police stations. Investigation of the said crime was entrusted to SI Jagdish Prasad Diwedi, in-charge of police out post Maduadhih who after recording the statements of informant and other witnesses recovered the Maruti Zen Car in which Ammol and the driver were returning home and he prepared its recovery memo vide GD No. 4 dated 15-3-2005. The I.O. also searched for the victim boy and the driver but in vain. During the course of investigation the I.O. came to know that the parents, students and the businessmen were terror stricken and the children were deterred from going to schools thereby the public order was badly affected because of the said incident. The news of the said abduction was prominently flashed by newspaper "Hindustan". The management of the school including Father Peter, Father David, Manager Rajesh Singh gave statements that the parents and the students were in shock and fear and the children were afraid of attending the school. Gravity of offence necessitated the investigation to be entrusted to R.K. Singh, Station House Officer, police station Maduadhih. The said officer found that to register protest and show anguish and anger, the student of the school wanted to make a human chain and block the roads. This was so reported in noting dated 17-3-2005 inGD No. 7.Parents and children organized assembly prayers and a spate of meetings of parents and children were organized for the safe return of the boy. The local MLA Shyam Deo Rai Chaudhary also raised his concern in the UP Legislative Assembly. All these facts found prominent reporting in newspapers including "Hindustan", a reputed daily newspaper. On 22-3-2005 Superintendent of Police (City), Varanasi was informed on phone that the abducted boy and the driver had been safely got released from the clutches of the abductors from village Kathrain by the police of police out post Pirasthua under police circle Kochai district Rohitas (Bihar). On the said information when the IO, R.K Singh SO reached Parasthua to bring back the boy and the driver he came to know that the abductors were Kaushleshwar Singh. Monu @ Santosh Singh, Santosh Kumar Singh, Deputy Singh and Nathu Singh and it was from their possession that the boy and the driver were recovered and illegal fire arms were also seized from them regarding which crime number 20 of 2005 under sections 25(1) 1A /26/35 Arms Act and 216 IPC was registered at police in District Rohitas (Bihar). It was also disclosed that the boy and the driver were kept in the house of Lal Bahadur Singh and Nathuni Singh who also guarded them. Accused abductor Kaushleshwar Singh disclosed the complicity of Shiv Prasad Singh @ Neta, Bhola Mia, and Mohan Paswan in the said abduction. Anmol Jain in his statement recorded on 25-3-2005 disclosed that at the time of abduction Ram Prasad driver did not resist nor he raised any alarm. Ram Prasad driver though confirmed the statement of Anmol Jain but he could not explain his queer behaviour and kept mum. It aroused suspicion against him. It was on 27-3-2005 that he was apprehended. On sever interrogation, he revealed that the present petitioner Ramesh Chand Upadhyay was also involved along with other culprits in the said crime which was the result of a well planned and hatched up conspiracy (that is how the name of the present petitioner figured in the crime on 27-3-2005). At the pointing out of Ram Prasad vehicle Tata Sumo UP 70 X 7396, used for abduction, was recovered from Bhabhua Taxi stand along with its driver Kapil Shah who was arrested. The present petitioner was arrested from village Kohari when he was on a motorcycle. All these facts find place in GD No. 56 dated 27-3-2005. In their confessional statements recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 28-3-2005, all the three accused- Ram Prasad, Kapil Shah and petitioner Ramesh Chand Upadhyay confessed involvement in the crime and were lodged in jail for the aforesaid crime number 66 of 2005 under section 364 A IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The petitioner was trying to get released on bail and after his release there was every likelihood of his indulging in similar activities of abduction and kidnapping. The District Magistrate, Varanasi respondent No.2, to desist the petitioner from further indulging in such activity detained him under the Act wield- ing power under section 3(2) thereof vide impugned order dated 30.4.2005, Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, quashing of which is sought by the petitioner through this petition.

(3.) The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention on the day of its passing and a perusal of the same indicates the facts mentioned herein before. The petitioner was also informed about his right to make a representation to the concerned Detaining Authority, State Government, Union Governmant and to the Advisory Board in accordance with section 8 of the Act. Under section 10 thereof, the petitioner made a representation to the authorities on 23-5-2005 which was received to the State Government on 24-5-2005 and the case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board on 25-5- 2005 and on its' opinion, the detention order of the petitioner was confirmed by the State Government on 30-5-2005. On the said facts, the detention order is prayed to be quashed.