MADHUSUDAN BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAMLESHWAR Nath, J. Both these writ petitions are taken up to be decided together as they raise common questions of fact and law.

(2.) BHOLA Nath Bajpai, son of Babu Ram Bajpai, resident of Amar Nagar Police Station Biswan has filed this W. P. No. 4582 of 86 through his father Shri Babu Ram Baipai challenging the validity of his preventive detention under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980. His brother Madhusudan Bajpai has also challenged his preventive detention under the said Act in W. P. No. 4592 of 86. The order of detention in both the cases was passed by the District Magis trate, Sitapur, on 19-4-1986, Annexure 1 of both these writ petitions. BHOLA Nath Bajpai was arrested and was lent to District Jail, Sitapur, on 31-5- 86 and order of detention dated 19-4-86 along with grounds of detention was served on him on the same day, Madhusudhan Bajpai surrendered on 2-6-86 and he was sent to District Jail and was served with the order of detention dated 19-4-86 along with grounds of detention on the same day.

(3.) IT was found that Madhusudan Bajpai was having gun while Bhola Nath was carrying revolver and when an effort was made to apprehened the two petitioners they started firing at the police party but some how police party succeeded in arresting Bhola Nath and took in possession his '38 bore revolver while Madhusudan Bajpai managed to escape holding out a challenge to the police party that if any one proceeded further he would be shot dead. This occurrence created panic amongst those living and standing in the area and a confusion was created making those persons run hither and thither and the entire atmosphere was surcharged with panic, fear and terror. Bhola Nath petitioner could not produce licence for the revolver and recovery memo was prepared on the spot. On basis of this report a case under Sections 25/27, Anns Act was re gistered against Bhola Nath. In the grounds of detention it is alleged that during the course of investigation it was found that the residents of the area were fear striken to the extent that no one was prepared to give evidence against the petitioners.