The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities must consider all relevant material, including cross versions of incidents, before passing a detention order under the National Security Act.

1. This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the detention order dated 26. 5. 2008 passed by District Magistrate, Allahabad Respondent No. 3 against the petitioner under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act and for his release from detention under the above Act.

2. Counter affidavits have been filed by all the four respondents and in reply to those counter affidavits, rejoinder affidavits have also been filed from the side of the petitioner.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and have gone through the writ petition, the counter affidavits as well as the rejoinder affidavits.

4. The facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that on 4. 5. 2008 at about 11 a. m. a FIR was registered by Rejendra Mohan Sharma against the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Shukla @ Guru and five other co-accused persons with these allegations that on the aforesaid date at about 8. 30 a. m. Rajendra Mohan Sharma along with his cousin brother Vivek Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Neeraj Kumar Sharma and others were talking and sitting on a Takhat in front of the shop of Vivek Sharma at Chiraiya Modh. At that time Ravi Shankar Shukla, Rajiv Kant Shukla, Shashi Kant Shukla a//as Bose, Vinay Kumar Shukla, Pradeep Kumar alias Guru and Rakesh Tiwari having rifles and guns of 12 bore reached there in Marshal Jeep No. UP 70-3150 which was of Rajiv Kant Shukla. Rakesh Tiwari stated that Vivek should be killed. Then Rajiv Kant Shukla fired at Vivek Shukla from the gun of 12 bore in his hand. Vivek received the fire arm injury above his left eye and he fell down. Then Shashi Kant Shukla a//as Bose stated that all the persons should be killed. Then the above named accused persons started to fire at the informant and his other colleagues. All of them rushed inside the house of Vivek Sharma to protect their lives.

Thereafter, the above named accused persons did several fires so there was terror in the market. The persons closed their shops and the public order was disrupted. When the accused went away, the informant and his companions came out of the house and took Vivek to the Swaroop Rani Hospital but the doctors told that he had died. Vivek was fired on account of dispute of realization of Tehbazari and so it was prayed that action should be taken in the matter.

5. On the basis of the above report, the police registered a case and started investigation. The S. O. of Police Station Meza submitted a report against Pradeep Kumar Shukla @ Guru for his detention under the National Security Act on account of above incident. His above report was recommended by the concerned C. O. Meza and the S. P. Jamunapar, and the SSP, Allahabad, and on the basis of these reports the District Magistrate passed an order on 26. 5. 2008 for detention of Pradeep Kumar Shukla @ Guru under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. Aggrieved with that order Pradeep Kumar Shukla @ Guru filed this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner first of all submitted before me that in this case Pradeep Kumar Shukla was detained under the National Security Act on account of this single incident only which was improper. In support of this contention he cited before us a ruling of the Honble Apex Court in Ramveen Jatav v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1987 SC 63. In this case, the facts were that the only ground for detention of the detenu was that he along with other accused persons had jointly committed murder in broad day light and there were no other circumstances to draw an inference that the detenu would be likely to commit such-act in future if left free, and so the order of detention passed under the National Security Act was held to be not sustainable. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case also the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was present with othe