RAJEEV VASHISTHA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a student of B. Com Part I, a budding youth of 21-22 years of age, seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus for being set at liberty on quashing the order of detention dated 30-6-1999, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, passed by the District Magistrate, Hardwar-respondent No. 2 under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which was approved by the State Government-respondent No. 1 and later on confirmed on 20-8-1999 after the receipt of the recommendations of the Advisory Board constituted under the Act.

(2.) The gist of the matter is that on 6-5-1999 at about 4 p.m. on Kankhal Road one Rajesh Sharma was murdered at his shop by opening fires by co-accused persons who were accompanying the present petitioner-the detenu. Radheshwar Sharma, brother of the deceased laid an F. I. R. of the incident at 5.35 p.m. on the same day at P. S. Jwalapur, Hardwar in pursuance of which a case-crime No. 191 of 1999 under S. 302, I. P. C. came to be registered. During the course of investigation, the name of the petitioner came to light as the murder was the product of the criminal conspiracy punishable under S. 120-B, I. P. C. hatched by the petitioner and other co-accused persons. The petitioner was arrested on 13/05/1999 along with a country made pistol of .315 bore with cartridges. While he was in jail, the detention order dated 30-6-1999, Annexure 1, was passed by Smt. Aradhna Shukla, District Magistrate, Hardwar. The grounds of detention as contemplated under S. 8 of the Act are annexed with the detention order. It is stated that Rajesh Sharma was annihilated at a public place by a assassin Naushad son of Sharif hired by the petitioner in the brilliant light of the day at his own shop with the result fear and terror loomed large in the area and the citizens feeling insecure started running helter-shelter, the shops were closed, the normal tempo of life was disturbed; there was breach of peace and public tranquillity and all-over public disorder prevailed. With a view to normalize the life and to make atmosphere peaceful, the Police contingent had to be deployed during the period 6th to 14/05/1999. It is also mentioned that the petitioner along with co-accused Nausad, Riasat alias Petha and Rakesh had entered into a criminal conspiracy to exterminate Rajesh Sharma; had hired Naushad for the purpose and a sum of Rs. 50,000 was promised to be paid to him after the work was accomplished though a sum of Rs. 16,000 was paid as advance. It was also mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner has moved an application for bail before the District and Sessions Judge, Hardwar on 29/06/1999 which was fixed for hearing on 4-7-1999; the petitioner was successful in getting released on bail, it is anticipated that he may resort to criminal activities thereby disturbing the 'public order'. On the basis of the above grounds the order of detention was passed.

(3.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. N. Pande, appearing on behalf of the Union of India and Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned A. G. A. on behalf of rest of the respondents at considerable length.