ADAB Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Purushottam Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Deepak Mishra, learned Counsel for Union of India and Sri Shri N.K. Verma, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioners submits that basis of the said detention order appears to be incident with regard to which three different FIRs were lodged with three different Case Crime numbers. The first being Case Crime no. 310 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 353 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, the second being Case Crime no. 311 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 307, 353, 427 I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 of Lok Nayas Adhiniyam and the third being Case Crime no. 312 of 2017. All the three FIRs have been lodged on the same day, i.e. 11.8.2017. The first F.I.R. was lodged at about 3:30 in the afternoon, the second F.I.R. was lodged at about 15:00 in the evening and the third F.I.R. was lodged at about 06:10 in the evening. The Court has been informed that subsequent to the passing of the detention order dated 25.5.2018, the petitioner has been granted bail in all the three case crime numbers. As far as Case Crime no. 310 of 2017 is concerned, the petitioner was granted bail on 24.5.2018. So far as Case Crime no. 311 of 2017 is concerned he was granted bail on 22.5.2018 and in Case Crime no. 312 of 2017 he was granted bail on 23.5.2018 but it has not been disputed that the date on which the detention order was passed by the appropriate authority that is 25.5.2018, the petitioner was in jail and the satisfaction of the detaining authority as recorded in this regard is absolutely false.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially an FIR has been referred to in the proceedings. In all the three FIRs, neither the petitioner nor his family members were named. His name as an accused came into light during investigation. No incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the petitioner or on his pointing out.