The grounds of detention must be sufficient to establish that the detenu is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. A mere panic among the people, without any further overt act on the part of the detenu, is not sufficient to justify preventive detention.

( 1 ) THROUGH this writ petition the petitioner sought that he be set at liberty from detention in connection with a detention order dated 2-7-97 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act recorded by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

( 2 ) THE detention order was recorded on 2-7-97 and the petitioner stood detained from 3-7-97. The impugned order simply stated that the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, was satisfied that the detention of Virendra Shukla for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order was necessary and accordingly the order under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act was passed. This order stood confirmed under Section 12 (1) of the National Security Act on 27-8-97 authorising his detention for 12 months from 3-7-97.

( 3 ) THE grounds of detention that were served upon the petitioner as required under Section 8 of the Act stated that on 12-6-97 the petitioner had shot at his tenant Sudheer Singh and his wife and others killing Sudheer Singh and injuring Smt. Bhawna Singh and Shiv Mangal Singh. This action was allegedly taken with a view to see that the tenanted premises be vacated and Case Crime No. 331 of 1997 for an offence under Sections 307 and 302 I. P. C. along with the other sections was started at police station Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar. The grounds further stated that the petitioner had taken the law in his own hand to get the tenaned premises vacated and as a result of the murder, peace in the locality was disturbed and a sense of fear and anxiety prevailed in the locality. It affected movement of the people and mohalla people were so terrified that public order was affected. People of neighbouring houses started fleeing their houses. One Vinod Kumar, a State Government employee, and one Suman Kumar, a lekhpal, made written applications that they were tenants under the petitioner but did not propose to remain there in any further. They had also prayed for police protection. It was stated that people were terror-stricken for the actions of the petitioner and if he was allowed to roam freely, public order would surely be disturbed.

( 4 ) THE grounds further stated that on the date of the order the applicant was already in custody in the aforesaid criminal case and he had presented bail application before the criminal court and there was likelihood of his being released on bail. The very possibility of his being released on bail had again put the mohalla people under a panic and they have started feeling insecure. The District Magistrate concluded that people were afraid of him and if he would move freely in the society certainly public order would affected and for maintenance of the public order it was necessary to detain the petitioner in custody. Upon these grounds the District magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner was likely to act in such a manner which would affect maintenance of public order.

( 5 ) IT was urged on behalf of the petitioner that even if the allegations be taken as true they did not make out a case of disturbance of public order as the offence was allegedly committed due to personal grudge and at the worst it could come within the ambit of disturbance of law and order only. It was further urged that the detention order was recorded without application of mind by the detaining authority and there were no materials for his subjective satisfaction for authorising a detention under the law. The petitioner has also indicated in his writ petition that his representation was not decided expeditiously and as such his continued detention was bad.

( 6 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS were filed by the District Magistrate and others and a rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the petitioner. The District Magistrate in his counter-affidavit had stated that the detention order was passed according to law and the representation of the petitioner was duly received on 15-7-97 and was duly sent to the Government on 16-7-97. A comment was also called

Click Here to Read the rest of this document