RIZWAN ALIAS RIJJU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.K. Kulshrestha, J. :-This petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed by detenu Rizwan @ Rijju S/o Abdul Gaffar through his mother Raisabee assailing the order of detention dated 25th March, 2008 (Annexure-P/1), passed by the District Magistrate, Indore in exercise of the power conferred upon him by Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") in pursuance whereof, he has been taken into custody and detained. In support of the order of detention, grounds (Annexure-P/4) as required by Section 8 of the Act, have been furnished to the detenu within the period prescribed therein.

(2.) In the grounds of detention, it is stated that on the festival of Holi, he had, on 22/3/2008 gone to the petrol pump and asked the Manager Manish Chouhan to give him petrol, who on his refusal, was abused by the detenu stating that he was supplying petrol to Hindus, but not to Muslims. Immediately thereafter, he alongwith his companions shot a bullet from the firearm which missed the said manager, but went through the window pane which broke. The bullet had caused damage to the pump and its machinery. There was every chance of spark and conflagration. The other grounds namely the ground No. 1 refers to commission of an offence by him under Sections 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ground No.l refers only to the trivial offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, which does not constitute any activity prejudicial to the public order but relates to law and order. Learned counsel submits that even the ground No.2 in which it is stated that he fired a bullet which missed the manager of the petrol pump and struck the glass, also does not constitute sufficient material for corning to the conclusion that it was prejudicial to the public order. Learned counsel has also submitted that although in the grounds of detention, it has been stated that the detenu has a right to file representation against his detention to the State Government [Additional Chief Secretary M.P. Government, Home (C) Department, Bhopal] and also to the Advisory Board and he has also a right to appear before the Advisory Board, nothing has been stated about the right of the detenu to file representation to the Central Government, with the result, the guarantee under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India stands breached and defeated.