BHARAT LAL TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MADAN Mohan Lal, J. This is a habeas corpus petition filed by Sri Bharat Lai Tiwari by which he has challenged the order of detention passed by the Dis trict Magistrate, Allahabad on 6-7-1988 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the grounds of detention served on the petitioner, when on 25-6-1988 Sri Vimal Srivastava Sub-Inspector, Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad, along with some constables, was proceeding in an investigation of a case under Section 379 I. P. C. he at about 10-15 a. m. received an information that one person carrying an unlicensed arm and with a view to commit crime was present in room No. 10 of Kesari Lodge situated at Patrika Marg, on which he went there. On reaching the said place the said Sri Vinal Srivastava found that the door of said Room No. 10 was not bolted from inside. Therefore, he opened the said door and found Bharat Lal Tiwari, the petitioner, present in the said room. On seeing the police, the petitioner fled after firing a shot. However, he was followed by the police. The petitioner fired a second shot which hit Sri Vimal Srivastava, Sub-Inspector. In self-defence the latter also fired a shot by which the petitioner was injured. The petitioner was surrounded and arrested. On search an unlicensed pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from his possession. Cases under Sections 307 I. P. C. . and 25 Arms Act were registered against the petitioner. It was further stated that on account of the said firing terror was created among the public who started to run away and the public order was affected.

(3.) AS already narrated above, the petitioner had fired only two shots at the police. One of the shots was admittedly fired when the petitioner was inside Room No. 10 of Kesari lodge and had tried to run away and the second shot was fired just thereafter when he was being chased by the police. The first shot fired by the petitioner inside Room No. 10 of Kesari Lodge could not by any argu ment affect the public order, firstly, because the said shot was fired inside a build ing where the police, on receiving an information, had gone there as per chance and secondly it is not a case where the petitioner was being followed and he dad taken shelter in the aforesaid Kesari Lodge. AS regards the second shot the res pondents have taken a stand before us that the same was fired just outside the Kesari Lodge. The petitioner has taken plea a that the place where the said second shot was alleged to have been fired was an isolated place. In order to rebut the same the respondents filed a supplementary counter affidavit supported by two sketch maps, one prepared by the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid cases registered against the petitioner under Sections 307 I. P. C. and 25 of the Arms Act, and the other prepared by a draftman. According to the said maps the main door of the Kesari Lodge opens in a blind lane in the south. Towards south of the said blind lane there is a bungalow belonging to one Sri Rathore, which does not open on the said blind lane but opens in the east on the Patrika Marg. The aforesaid blind lane also opens on the said Patrika Marg.