AMIR ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 31.08.2016 passed by District Magistrate, Farrukhabad (respondent no.3) in the exercise of his power under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, which, along with the ground of detention was served on the petitioner while he was in District Jail, Farrukhabad on account of his being accused in Case Crime No. 799 of 2016 under Sections 147, 323, 452, 332, 353 and 506 I.P.C.; Case Crime No. 800 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 336, 353, 186, 427 I.P.C and under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Section 3/4 of Public Property Damage Act and Case Crime No. 803 of 2016 under Section 25/27 Arms Act, which were registered vide three different first information reports lodged by informant/complainant Sanjeev Pandey, S.I. Sanjeev Singh Rathore and S.I. Rashid Akhtar respectively, in respect of the incident, which had allegedly taken place on 13.08.2016, containing allegations against the petitioner regarding beating informant Sanjeev Kumar Pandey and his family members, the Sub-Inspector who had arrived on the spot, causing damage to public property and firing outside the premises of police station.

(2.) The grounds of detention further reveal that on account of aforesaid activities of the petitioner, an atmosphere of fear and terror had engulfed the whole area. Parents had stopped sending their children to school; peace and tranquility of vicinity and public order in the area was totally shattered.

(3.) A perusal of grounds of detention further indicates that the petitioner was in District Jail, Farrukhabad on account of his being involved in Case Crime Nos. 799, 800 and 803 of 2016 was making efforts through his pairokar to obtain bail and in this regard, he had moved a bail application before the lower court, which was rejected by order dated 17.08.2016 and thereafter, he had moved a bail application before District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, which was pending before him and 01.09.2016 was the date fixed for its hearing and in case the petitioner was released on bail, there was strong possibility of the petitioner again indulging in activities which will disturb public order and hence, the detaining authority found it imperative to pass an order of preventive detention against the petitioner.