Back
2003 Supreme(All) 778
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
U.S.Tripathi, D.P.Gupta
VINAY KUMAR SAHU; VIPIN SAHU; PRADEEP KUMAR SAHU; GORAKH SAHU; RAKESH KUMAR SAHU
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 10 April 2003
Criminal Misc. Habeas Corpus Petition Nos. 5837, 6804, 6807, 6809, 6811 of 2003
A.B.L.Gaur, B.K.Tripathi, B.N.Singh, Mahendra Pratap, Vijay Vikram,
Preventive detention cannot be challenged on the ground of parity, and the impact on public order depends on the effect of the act on the community.
Headnote:
Detention Order - National Security Act - Section 3 (2) - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed writ petitions to quash their detention orders under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, based on their involvement in a murder case. They argued that the incident was a law and order problem and did not impact public order, and there was an unexplained delay in deciding their representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention orders were not justified based on the principle that preventive detention cannot be challenged on the ground of parity. It also concluded that the incident did not have the potential to disturb public order. The court also found that there was a sufficient explanation for the delay in deciding the representation.
Issues: Validity of detention orders, impact on public order, and delay in deciding the representation.
Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention cannot be challenged on the ground of parity, and the impact on public order depends on the effect of the act on the community. There was a sufficient explanation for the delay in deciding the representation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, quashed the detention orders, and directed the release of the petitioners.
The above five writ petitions have been separately filed by each of the petitioner for quashing their detention order dated 26-11-2002 passed by District Magistrate, Azamgarh, respondent No. 3 under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act.
2. Each of the petitioner was separately served with the grounds of detention alongwith detention order, which stated that on 12-7-2002 at about 5. 30 p. m. the petitioner Vinay Kumar Sahu alongwith petitioners Rakesh Kumar Sahu, Gorakh Sahu, Pradeep Kumar Sahu and Vipin Kumar Sahu all real brothers alongwith their three associates Sohan Yadav, Akhilesh @ Sonu and Ghanshyam Jaiswal committed murder of Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, R/o Rampur Lahuwakala, P. S. Kotwali Deogaon, District Azamgarh in Kasba Lalganj on public road by causing brick but and stone injuries and caused grievous injures to his cousin brother Shashank Shekhar Singh @ Sonu, his material grand-father Major D. M. Singh and Kanhaiya Singh and driver Maksood by rod, dandas and stones. Vinay Kumar Sahu also fired several rounds from his revolver, but it did not hit any body. Licensed gun of Major D. M. Singh was also snatched by the petitioners. By the above act of the petitioners a sense of terror and chaos was created in the locality. The public order was adversely affected. The persons passing on the road started running helter skelter. All the shops of Kasba Lalganj were closed and shop keepers took shelter inside their house. Traffic was badly disrupted and it adversely affected maintenance of public order. The report of the incident was lodged by Sri Shashank Shekhar @ Sonu, brother of deceased Dr. Arun Kumar Singh. On the basis of above report a case at Crime No. 168 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 427, 336, IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered at the police station. Subsequently, Sections 356, 379 and 411, IPC were added on recovery of 12 bore gun and tape of the car. After investigation charges-sheet was submitted in the case on 10-10-2002.
3. Each of the petitioner was detained in connection with above case Crime No. 167 of 2002 in District Jail, Azamgarh since 22-11-2002 and they were trying to get them released on bail. Bail, Application was also moved in the Court. There was real possibility of petitioners being released on bail and after release on bail their indulging in similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, the detaining authority was satisfied that detention of the petitioners was essential for maintenance of public order.
4. The detention order dated 27-11-2002 was served on each of the petitioner separately on same day i. e. , 27-11-2002. The above detention order was affirmed and approved by the State Government on 5- 12-2002. Each of the petitioner submitted representation on 13-12-2002 addressed to the Home
Secretary, U. P. and Home Secretary, India as well as Advisory Board. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by State Government on 2-1-2003 and by the Central Government 7-1-2003.
5. We have heard Sri A. B. L. Gaur and Sri B. K. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner in each petition, Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned A. G. A and Standing Counsel on behalf of Union of India and have perused the record.
6. All the five writ petitions related to same incident and common question of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions. Therefore, all the 5 writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the detention order on the following grounds :
(1) As many as eight persons including the petitioners were involved in the incident in question, but detention order was passed only against 5 persons, the petitioner of each writ petition, and no detention order was passed against three accused of the incident namely Sohan Yadav, Akhilesh @ Sonu and Ghanshyam Jaiswal. Since no detention order was passed ag
