GANGA PRASAD DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Ganga Prasad Dubey was detained by an order dated 14.3.1989 passed under Section 3 (2) of N.S.A. by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. According to ground of detention furnished to him, the petitioner along with his associates on 18th October, 1988 had stopped the scooters of Prabhu Dayal Arora and sharad Kumar Srivastava and had looted Rs. 4 lacs from the Diggi of Prabhu Dayal Aroras scooter and Rs. 2.50,000/- from the Diggi of Sharad Kumar Srivastava after firing upon Ptabhu Dayal Arora who later on died in the hospital. One Babu Lal waa also injured in the afore said firing. The FIR. without naming any person was registered at Colonel Ganj Police station, Allahabad as crime No. 885 of 1988 under Sections 3941302 I.P.C. Later on the case was converted under section 396 I.P.C. During the investigation, the complicity of 7 persons was found in this incident including that of the petitioner, who was arrested on 28th December 1988. On his arrest, the Petitioner admitted that in the loot resulting in the murder of Prabhu Dayal Arora he had got a share of Rs. 75,000/-, out of which he had deposited Rs. 25,000/- in the State Bank of India, Manauri in his name, Rs. 8600/- in the Bank of Baroda, Nawada Branch, in the name of his son and that he had given Rs. 10,000/- each to co-accused Gyan Roop Dwivedi and Pappu Singh. He further admitted that he bad deposited Rs. 25,000/- in the Nawada Branch in his name and Rs. 15,000/- in the State Bank of India, Sulem Sarai Branch in his name. Rest of the money was admitted to have seen spent by him in purchasing bicycle and clothes of his children etc. The petitioner also disclosed that out of loot of 6 lacs Rs. 50,060/- were spent for purchasing car for the Gang. The petitioner was put for identification on 3Vt January, 1989. The witnesses identified him infront of the Magistrate. After investigation had been completed, charge- sheet in the above mentioned case had been submitted. The incident had happened in a very thickly populated locality and the people were terrorised. There was also sense of insecurity in the people. The business community was badly dis-Satisfied and Vyapar Maildal also decided to observe closer in the Muthiganj market on 19th October, 1988. Even the normal life of community had been disturbed and public order had also been disturbed on account of the said incident It was further mentioned that the petitioner was detained in Naini Central Jail, Allahabad but there was apprehension that he would soon be released on bail. On being satisfied that after his release from Jail, the petitioner was likely to indulge in similar activities again, which might have affected the maintenance of public order, the detention order was passed against him by the detaining authority.The present petition was med challenging the detention of the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid order. The petitioner had also med supplementary affidavit. On the notice being issued, counter-affidavits on behalf of the detaining authority, State Government and the Central Government were med. The petitioner also filed rejoinder-affidavit.

(2.) We have heard Shri R. A. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Shri Prem Prakash, learned Additional Government Advocate and Shri Shrish Chandra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government in this case.

(3.) Shri R. A. Misra contended that the activities mentioned in the detention order do not relate to public order but were only the activities confined to problems of law and order. It is not possible to accept this contention. If a person by forming a gang was looting persons, who were going to make deposits in the Bank, their activity was clearly one which was going to affect the even tempo of life of the community as the people would feel in secured that at any point of time, they may become victims of such a gang. The contention of the petitioner that the ground does not raise a problem of public order, is not correct, and is to be rejected.