The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the petitioner's act, its potential impact on public order and communal harmony, and the satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the petitioner's future activities justified the detention order under the National Security Act.

U. S. TRIPAHTI, J.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his detention order dated 3-11-2002 passed by District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, respondent No. 2 under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act.

2. Along with the order of detention, the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention, which stated that on 30-10-2002 when Inspector Incharge, P. S. Bhognipur along with other police officers was busy in search of accused of other cases, he got information through informer that some butchers kasai were illegally slaughtering cow in vacant field of Bobby situate near tube-well of Nizam in village Chandapur and were making pieces of cow meat, on account of which Hindu community of the village was enraged and they were opposing the act of butchers. On account of it, there was possibility of disturbance of public order and happening of some untoward incident. Believing on above information, Inspector Incharge tried to collect witnesses, but none was ready. He along with police force reached near tube-well of Nizam at about 8. 30 a. m. from where he saw that 6-7 persons were slaughtering two cows in the vacant field of Bobby and were cutting flesh into pieces with Chhuri and Kulhari. About 100- 150 persons of Hindu community were standing near the place and were opposing the act of butchers.

The Inspector Incharge challenged the butchers and on his challenge they started running away with Chhuri and Kulhari towards people collected there extending threats to the persons of Hindu community that they had given information about them to the police and they would see them after departure of the police. By their threats the persons standing there started running helter skelter. The people of the locality closed their doors and windows, the shop keepers closed their shops and traffic was stopped. The public order was badly affected. The police force chased the butchers at 8. 45 a. m. and apprehended the petitioner Faeem and his associates Anwar, Shakil and Nafis, all residents of village Chandanpur, P. S. Bhognipur along with Kulhari and Chhuri. Two associates of the petitioner made their escape good. Veterinary Surgeon of Pukhrayan was called on Radio Transmission Set, who examined the flesh and opined that it was meat of cow and its progeny. Regarding incident a case was registered at Crime No. 310 of 2002 under Sections 3/5/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act. During investigation Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was added. The case was investigated and the witnesses namely Chhote Lal, Ram Swaroop, Manne Lal and Rajpal disclosed in their statements under Section 161, Cr. p. C. that they had seen the petitioner and his associates slaughtering two cows in the field of Bobby and on their objection they were threatened and on account of incident, even tempo of life was disturbed and sentiments of Hindu community was badly affected. Communal tension also prevailed between the two communities.

3. The petitioner was detained in jail in connection with case Crime No. 310 of 2002 in District Jail, Kanpur and had moved bail application. There was real possibility of petitioner being released on bail and after release on bail, his indulging in similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

4. The petitioner was informed that he had right to make representation to the District Magistrate (Detaining Authority), State Government, Central Government and Advisory Board and in case he wanted to make such representation he could do so through Jail Authorities.

5. We have heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A. G. A. for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri D. S. Lal, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 4, Union of India and have perused the record.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised following points for challenging the detention order:

(1) The detaining authority had passed detention order mechanically withou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document