Back
1997 (2) Crimes 163
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (DB)
(Lucknow Bench )
K.C. BJARGAVA and A.S. Gill, JJ
Anil-Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others-Respondents
Writ Petition No. 171 (H.C) of 1996
Decided on 5.8.1996
Counsel for the parites:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.K. Punhani, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Govt. Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
In cases where cause where cause of attack were on account of personal animosity, the ground of detention did not relate to problem of public order nut are problem of law & order.
Headnote:(i) National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2)- Prenventive detention – Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority must be on basis of some material to form opinion that it was necessary to detain a person to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order- Punlic order as against law & order- One has to see the degree of disturbance & its effect upon life of community in a locality- Petitioner detenu was alleged to have murdered a four years old child- Crime was committed on secret place on account of personal animosity- it was commission of crime against an individual and not against public-Further allegations that children were not being permitted to go out of house were vague- Detention order was liable to be quashed. (Paras 6 to 12)
(ii) National Security Act, 1980- Section 3(2)- Detention order- Detention order against father and brother of detenu was revoked- Ground of detention were same – Detention of petitioner is discriminatory. (Para 14)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
A.S. Gill, J. – The petitioner (in detention) before us has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing his detention order dated 20.9.1995, passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut under Section 3(2) National Security Act, 1980. The order of detention was served on the petitioner on 20.9.1995, when he was in Hail in Case Crime No. 296/1995 under Sections 368/ 302/201. I.P.C. Police Station T.P. Nagar Meerut. The detention order indicated the District Magistrate. Meerut was satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was necessary, with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
2. The detention order of the petitioner emanated from his involvement in the commission of murder of a child Tushar aged about 4 years after hatching a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused in respect of which the - aforesaid crime case was registered with the police (station with the allegation that on 13-4-1995 at 12.00 noon, pursuant to criminal conspiracy he kid-napped 4 years' old child Tushar son of Sanjay Singh, Supervisor Naveen Mandi, Meerut with the help of Riksha Puller' and after taking the child to a vacant house in the Avas Vikas Colony, same day he committed the murder of the child with a knife in a most heinous manner by damaging the eyes of the child and keeping hot brick on the body of the child. Petitioner allegedly confessed his guilt and narrated the sequence of murder of child and narrated his participation with his brother Sunil and father Nanak. He allegedly produced the blood stained knife from his possession during investigation of the case. It was further stated in the grounds of detention that on account of the act and conduct of the petitioner of killing the child in such a cruel manner a sense of fear and panic was created in the locality and children were not permitted to go to their schools. It is also indicated that the bail application of the petitioner was pending consideration bet Ore the Court and in order to avoid his further involvement in similar cases after his release on bail, which will affect publ1eorder, he was required to be detained under the National Security Act.
3. The case of detention against the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board before whom petitioner appeared on 30-10-1995. The Advisory Board recommended to the Government the detention of the petitioner on 4-11-1995 and the State Government confirmed the detention order on 9-11-1995.
4. The detention order has been challenged inter alia on two grounds firstly that similar detention order was passed against the father and brother of the petitioner, which was not approved by the Advisory Board and the Government revoked the detention order in respect of Sunil and Nanak Chandra. The detention orders in respect of both Sunil and Nanak Chandra were on similar grounds, on which the detention of the petitioner has been ordered and secondly the offence, if any allegedly committed by the, petitioner does not attract the disturbance of public peace or a public order in any manner and if at all, it was a case of breach of law and order.
5. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate and he has supported the detention order on the grounds of detention and other documents placed before him. The cases of Sunil and Nanak Chandra were on different footing because the role of the petitioner in the commission of crime at the time of passing the detention order about the recovery of blood stained knife at the instance of the petitioner during the investigation was considered, which also finds mention in the grounds of detention. As a result of killing of the child panic and terror and resentment prevailed in the locality and the people stopped their child from going out of their houses and as such the presence of the petitioner again in the locality was likely to di
