The District Magistrate's failure to consider the detenu's version of the incident vitiates the satisfaction of the District Magistrate with regard to the involvement of the detenu in the incident.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged validity of his continued detention in pursuance to the order of the District Magistrate, Varanasi, dated February 19, 1985, issued in exercise of powers under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

( 2 ) THE District Magistrate has passed the order of detention against the petitioner on only one ground. The ground supplied to the petitioner recites that on 6. 2. 1965 at about 12. 00 noon the petitioner along with his associates, Sita Ram 5/0 Mukund Sao, Ramesh, Ani Rai and Akhilesh Rai, attacked Anil Singh and his companions, Arun Chaubey, Ashok Jaiswal and others with bombs and country made pistols when they were passing through the Avasanganj crossing, as a result of which several passersby received injuries. A criminal case under sections 307/149, I. P. C. was registered against the petitioner at police station Jaitpura. The ground further states that Avasanganj crossing is situated in a thickly populated area where at 12. 00 noon crowd of persons was present. As a result of murderous assault made by the petitioner on Anil Singh and his associates, the entire area was gripped with fear, terror and tension. The residents of the locality closed their doors and windows due to fear which adversely affected public order. The order further states that on these facts the District Magistrate who was the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioners detention was necessary with a view to prevent him from indulging into activities prejudicial to public order.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has asserted that on 6. 2. 85 at about noon he was proceeding along with his two friends on a rickshaw towards Lohatia. When he reached near A vasanganj crossing, Anil Singh accompanied by Bhaiya Lal, Suresh, and Rama Shankar and others attacked him with country made pistols and bombs causing serious injuries to him and a few passersby. On receiving the injuries the petitioner rushed to Kabirchaura Hospital where he was given medical aid. The petitioner has further asserted that from hospital he sent a written report through his brother to the police station and in pursuance thereof a criminal case was registered against Anil Singh and others, it being crime No. 19 of 1985 under sections 307/149, I. P. C. at police station Jaitpura, at 2. 30 p. m. The injuries were examined by the Medical Officer of Kabirchaura Hospital at 1. 05 p. m. who found three multiple gun-shot injuries on the petitioners body. The petitioner has further asserted that Anil Singh and others sad no defence but his father, Sri Nath Singh, lodged a first information report at police station Jaitpura on 6. 2. 85 at 16. 15 hours under section 307/149 I. P. C. against the petitioner and others on the allegation that the petitioner along with Sita Ram, Ramesh, Anil Rai and Akbilesh Rai had attacked Anil Singh and his associates with bombs and country made pistols at Avasanganj crossing; but Anil Singh and others escaped, some passersby were injured. On the basis of the first information report, crime No. 19a of 1985 was registered at the police station Jaitpura. On the basis of the allegations contained in the first information report lodged by Srinath Singh, Anil Singhs father, against the petitioner and his associates, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order of detention.

( 4 ) THE petitioners grievance is that his version of the incident was not placed before the District Magistrate nor he considered the same before arriving at the requisite satisfaction as contemplated by section 3 (2) of the Act. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the petition the petitioner stated that the first information report lodged by the petitioners brother and the petitioners injury report were not placed before the District Magistrate. Sri R. S Todla, District Magistrate, who passed the order of detention, has filed his own affidavit. In paragraph 15 of his affidavit he has