RAM SARAN VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Cor ­pus Writ Petition has been filed by the pe ­titioner Ram Saran Verma challenging the detention order dated 1.11.2008 passed against him by the respondent No. 3, Dis ­trict Magistrate, Pilibhit under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act and for seek ­ing his release from detention under the above Act.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that on 22.10.2008 Case Crime No. 1163 of 2008 was regis ­tered at Police Station Kotwali Bisalpur, District Pilibhit under sections 302 and 147 IPC in respect of the murder of Sonu alias Sunil Kumar with these allegations that he had been murdered by four to five Muslim boys and in connection with that incident the petitioner delivered provoking speeches in the Ram Lila Maidan with a view to spread malice between Hindus and Muslims to disturb the communal har ­mony. Consequently, public order was disturbed and the Ram Lila festival was also disturbed. He was asked not to deliver such speeches but he did not mend his ways so he was arrested under sections 151, 107 and 116 CrPC. However, he alongwith his companions caused mischief to the shops of the Muslims and so case crime No. 1165 of 2008 under sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was regis ­tered against him and other co -accused persons on 23.10.2008. The public order was again disturbed and case crime No. 210 of 2008 under sections 147, 341, 323, 353, 332, 336, 153A, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was regis ­tered against him and a charge -sheet was also submitted against him in this case on 29.10.2008. Since there were chances that after his release on bail, the petitioner may involve in such - activities again, the SHO of Police Station, Bisalpur submitted a report for his detention under the National Secu ­rity Act through proper channel to the District Magistrate and the District Magis ­trate, after being satisfied with that report and the recommendations of the concerned authorities thereon, passed an order for his detention under the National Security Act on 1.11.2008. The petitioner filed his repre ­sentations against that order but they were rejected. Then he filed this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that there has been inordinate delay in decision of the repre ­sentation of the petitioner by respondent No. 2 -Union of India. He referred to para 5 and para 6 of the counter affidavit of Smt. Lalit Prabha Srivastava, Under Secretary in the Home Ministry of the Central Govern ­ment in which it has been stated that the petitioner's representation was received in the concerned section in the Home Ministry on 21.11.2008 without para wise comments. Hence, para wise comments were called for through wireless massage on 27.11.2008. In the meantime, the petitioner's representa ­tion with para wise comments was re ­ceived on 2.12.2008 through the District Magistrate, Pilibhit vide his letter dated 22.11.2008. Then that representation was processed for consideration and the matter was put up before the Director (Security) who considered the same and passed an order for obtaining criminal history of the detenu from the State Government. Then a letter was sent to the State Government on 8.12.2008. The State Government sent the criminal history of the petitioner on 4.12.2008 and it was received in the con ­cerned section in the Home Ministry on 11.12.2008. The file was then put up before the Under Secretary on 11.2.2009 who submitted the same to the Director (Security) on 12.2.2009. The Joint Secretary forwarded the same to the Union Home Secretary on 12.2.2009. The Union Home Secretary considered the case and rejected the representation on 13.2.2009. Then the file was received back in the concerned section on 17.2.2009 and intimation regard ­ing rejection of the representation was sent to the petitioner on 17.2.2009. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that according to para 6 of the counter affidavit of Smt. Lalit Prabha, the criminal history of the petitioner was re ­ceived in her office on 11.12.2008 and then the file was put up before her on 11.2.2009 and there is no explanation on this point as to what was being done in the office during this period of two months from 11.12.2008 to 11.2.2009.