BHAGAUTI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. Bhagauti Singh has preferred this Habeas Corpus writ petition challenging his continued deten tion on the basis of the order dated 2-6-1998 of the District Magistrate, Raebareli under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act.

(2.) THE detention of the petitioner is based on a solitary incident of 21-5-98 at 7. 30 p. m. It is alleged that the petitioner along with some of his companions variously armed reached Sads- Tehsil, Raebaroli, where one Hamid Ali was confined in execution of a recovery certificate of Rs. one lac ninety-one thousand and odd. At that time Naib-Tehsildar Rajaram Gautam, Lekhpal, Collection Amin and about 20- 25 peoples were present. THEy caught hold of Naib-Tehsildar and abused him and also gave him beating by slaps and fists and they wanted to break-open the lock-up to rescue Hamid, Ali. Persons present there tried to save Naib-Tehsildar whereupon the companions of the petitioner fired twice or thrice with the result that the persons present in the Tehsil started running away for their lives. THE Naib-Tehsildar also ran to conceal himself. THEre was also commotion in the residen tial colony of the Tehsil and the inmates closed their doors. Meanwhile, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Circle Officer-Sadar with police force reached there. On their arrival the petitioner and his com panions made good their escape. Sri Raja Ram Gautam lodged an FIR on the basis of which a case was registered as crime No. 584/98 under Section 147/148/149/504/332/353/307, I. P. C. , Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sec tion 3 (1) (x) SC and ST Act. THE grounds of detention further state that due to the incident there, was possibility that the petitioner may again act in similar manner to protect his companions and other in fluential persons who had not cleared their dues and on account of the incident work of realisation had been effected and hence in order to prevent the petitioner from indulging in such activities which may lead to disturbance of public order, the im pugned detention order was necessary.

(3.) IN view of our conclusion that it is not a case where the detention of the petitioner was necessary to prevent him from disturbing the public order, it is not necessary to dwell upon the second sub mission of learned Counsel for the petitioner.