VIRENDRA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition the petitioner sought that he be set at liberty from detention in connection with a detention order dated 2-7-97 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act recorded by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) The detention order was recorded on 2-7-97 and the petitioner stood detained from 3-7-97. The impugned order simply stated that the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, was satisfied that the detention of Virendra Shukla for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order was necessary and accordingly the order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act was passed. This order stood confirmed under Section 12 (1) of the National Security Act on 27-8-97 authorising his detention for 12 months from 3-7-97.

(3.) The grounds of detention that were served upon the petitioner as required under Section 8 of the Act stated that on 12-6-97 the petitioner had shot at his tenant Sudheer Singh and his wife and others killing Sudheer Singh and injuring Smt. Bhawna Singh and Shiv Mangal Singh. This action was allegedly taken with a view to see that the tenanted premises be vacated and Case Crime No. 331 of 1997 for an offence under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. along with the other sections was started at police station Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar. The grounds further stated that the petitioner had taken the law in his own hand to get the tenaned premises vacated and as a result of the murder, peace in the locality was disturbed and a sense of fear and anxiety prevailed in the locality. It affected movement of the people and mohalla people were so terrified that public order was affected. People of neighbouring houses started fleeing their houses. One Vinod Kumar, a State Government employee, and one Suman Kumar, a lekhpal, made written applications that they were tenants under the petitioner but did not propose to remain there in any further. They had also prayed for police protection. It was stated that people were terror-stricken for the actions of the petitioner and if he was allowed to roam freely, public order would surely be disturbed.