SHAMSHUDDIN IN JAIL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 15.2.1998, passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli, directing detention of petitioner under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Prayer has also been made to release the detenu-petitioner from detention. The order of detention dated 15.2.1998 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Along with the impugned order of detention, petitioner was also supplied the grounds for passing the same. Narration of the facts in the grounds supplied is as under :

(2.) That on 17.9.1997, at 10.00 p.m. in the night Amjad, son of Mahboob and Pappu, son of Haji Madar abducted one Chhote Lal, son of Ram Swarup, resident of village Karvat, police station Mughalsaral, district Chandauli and killed him. The offence was registered at police station Mughalsaral as Case Crime No. 306 of 1997, under Section 364/302/201, I. P. C. which is under consideration of the Court. On 20.9.1997, at about 8.00 a.m. while Shivnath and Sukhnath, both real brothers; residents of village Bhisaudf, police station Mughaisaral, were going to their fields and were discussing about the abduction and murder of Chhote Lal Palel, and reached in the lane passing through the front of the house of Mahboob, the petitioner along with his companions dragged Sukhnath inside the lane and gave several knife blows in his abdomen. Sukhnath in injured condition could run about twenty steps, then fell down and died. Shivnath escaped and gave a call. By that time petitioner with 18-20 persons of his community, armed with lathis, dandas and knives, attacked persons of Hindu community. They forcibly entered in the betel and general merchant shop of Surendra and looted it, destroyed the tea-stall of Ganga, son of Raghunath and sweet and tea shop of Khaje, son of Babu Nandan and also destroyed the roof of the shop, set the shop of Ram Surat on fire which burnt down to ashes, caused injuries by Danda and Knife to Nathuni, son of Ram Chandra. A report of this incident was lodged in police station Mughalsarai same day which was registered as Case Crime No. 306A of 1997. under Section 147/148/149/ 302/435/436/323/324/504/506/395/ 397/427. l.P.C. which is under consideration of the Court.

(3.) On account of the aforesaid action of the petitioner and his companions, a sense of commotion and terror prevailed in village Bhisaudi, the adjoining villages and in the market. The entire area was under fear. The normal life in the area disrupted and it became difficult to maintain public order. It has been further said that the petitioner is in custody and he has made application for bail in the Court and there is every likelihood of his being released on bail and if he is released, he shall again indulge in similar activities and it shall become impossible to maintain public order. It has also been said that if the petitioner is allowed to remain free, it shall be against the maintenance of public order and shall also be against peace-loving citizens of Bhisaudi and nearby area. From the aforesaid activities of the petitioner public order and even tempo of life in village Bhisaudi and adjoining area has been disturbed and public order has been affected. The authority has recorded his satisfaction that the petitioner "by his criminal activities shall disturb the public order as he is of criminal habits. There is every possibility that he will indulge in such activities again which shall affect the public order and to prevent petitioner from indulging in such activities it is necessary to detain him under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner has also been informed that he has right to make a representation to the State Government and the Central Government against his detention which he may submit through the Jail Superintendent. He has also been informed that the case of detention of the petitioner shall be considered under Section 10 of the Act by Advisory Board and he may submit the representation within three weeks against his detention. It has also been stated that if he desires a personal hearing by the Advisory Board, it should also be mentioned in the representation. Along with the grounds of detention, petitioner has been supplied as many as 23 documents on which basis the authority formed his subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention,