The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to consider the counter-version of the case and the pending bail applications can vitiate a detention order under the National Security Act.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned detention order dated 20-1-2001 Annexure 1 to the writ petition passed under the National Security Act.

( 2 ) WE have the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the affidavits.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has alleged that he is a businessman and is a member of the Samajvadi Party. It appears from a perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure 2 to the petition) that on 5-11-2000 at about 7 p. m. the petitioner with his associates (who are Sunni Muslims ) attacked persons belonging to the Shia community with firearms and country made pistols and injured them. It alleged that on account of this incident people of the locality due to fear shutthe doors of their shops and public order was disturbed and an F. I. R. was registered in Case Crime No. 425 of 2000 under Section 147, 148/149/307/504/506, I. P. C. read with Section 5 Explosive Substances Act and Section 7 , Crl. Law Amendment Act.

( 4 ) IT is alleged that on 29-1-2001 when there was relaxation of the curfew the petitioner along with others armed with knives and spears attacked two persons belonging to Shia community and caused them serious injury which again disturbed the public order and an F. I. R. in Case Crime No. 49 of 2000 was lodged in this connection.

( 5 ) IT is also stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is detained in jail in Case crime No. 425 of 2000 which was later converted into Section 302, I. P. C. and is trying to get himself released on bail and has filed a bail application in Court and the possibility is that he will get bail. In view of the above allegations the impugned detention order has been passed.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has firstly submitted that the counter-version of the case has been placed before the detaining authority as alleged in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the writ petition. This counter-version is contained in the documents copies of which are Annexures R. A. 1, R. A. 2 and R. A. 3 of the rejoinder affidavit. These are applications under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. filed before the learned C. J. M. , Azamgarh. On these applications on 16-12-2000 the learned Magistrate directed the S. O. Mobarakpur to register a criminal case in connection with the incident. On 18-12-2000 copy of this order has been sent to S. O. Mobarakpur. In this counter-version it has been alleged that in fact people of this Shia community attacked the Sunnis armed with weapons.

( 7 ) IN compliance with this order on these applications criminal cases Nos. 3-C, 4-C and 5-C of 2001 have been registered in police station, Mobarkpur. The petitioners allegation that the counter-version has not been placed before the detaining authority has not been disputed. In Criminal Appeal No. 798 of 1985 Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U. P. decided on 22-11-1985 the Supreme Court held that the rival version was certainly a vital circumstance to be considered by the detaining authority before the order of detention was passed, and since that was not taken into consideration the order of detention is vitiated. The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Manjoo Tyagi v. Adhikshak, Janpad Karagar, 1998 JIC 327. This view has also been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Khelawan v. State of UP 1998 0 UPCrir 95, Munna Jaiswal v. The District Magistrate (1986) 1 Crimes 151 : (1986 All LJ 265) and by a Full Bench of this Court in Munni Lal v. Superintendent of Central Jail, 1985 All WC 641 (vide paragraph 46 ). Hence we are of the opinion that on this ground itself the impugned detention order stands vitiated.

( 8 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no bail application of the petitioner was pending when the impugned detention order was passed. This statement is in paragraphs 19, 20, 28 and 29 of the writ petition. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner had moved the bail application whic