ANIL BHATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri D.S. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Chandrakesh Mishra and Shri Vikas Chandra Srivastava, for the petitioner; Shri Shashi Bhushan, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Annapurna Singh, for the Union of India; Shri Vinay Saran, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Harikesh Kumar Gupta, for the Intervenor; the learned A.G.A. for the state respondents; and have perused the record.

(2.) By means of this habeas corpus petition, the petitioner Anil Bhati, currently in Jail, has questioned his detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the Act, 1980) pursuant to the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar (for short DM) under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the Act, 1980, which has been confirmed by the State Government vide order dated 22.01.2019 and, thereafter, the detention period has been extended. The petitioner has prayed that after setting aside the detention order he be released.

(3.) A resume of relevant facts would be apposite. From the return filed by the Jailor, District Jail, Kaushambhi (for short the Jailor), it appears, the petitioner Anil Bhati was admitted in District Jail, Muzaffarnagar on 17.03.2018 pursuant to remand order dated 8.12.2017 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar in case crime no.751 of 2017, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautambudh Nagar, which related to an incident dated 16.11.2017. While he was in custody, remand orders were obtained in five other cases on the basis of petitioner's subsequent implication in those cases. On administrative ground, on transfer, the petitioner was admitted in District Jail, Kaushambhi on 07.07.2018. While the petitioner was in jail in connection with those cases, he was served with the impugned detention order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the DM. The grounds of detention served upon the petitioner indicate that the subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner under the Act, 1980 was drawn on the basis of his involvement in Case Crime No.751 of 2017 (supra) as the incident relating to it had allegedly disturbed the public order. However, for the purpose of drawing satisfaction in respect of the propensity of the petitioner to repeat such act, upon being released on bail, his implication in four other cases was narrated. In paragraph 8 of the grounds of detention it was mentioned that the bail applications of the petitioner in respect of Case Crime No.751 of 2017 (supra) and Case Crime No. 378 of 2018, P.S. Bisrakh, District Gautambudh Nagar, under sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities) Act, 1986, were pending in the High Court and a date was fixed for their consideration but because the co-accused Arun Yadav has been granted bail in Case Crime No. 751 of 2017, there is imminent likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail therefore detention under the Act, 1980 was considered necessary with a view to prevent him from repeating activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention also indicate that the DM was satisfied that if bail is granted in the main case i.e. Case Crime No.751 of 2017 (supra) then securing bail in other cases, which were not so serious, would not be difficult.