SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(All) 1489

[2012(7) ADJ 343 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : DHARNIDHAR JHA AND RAMESH SINHA, JJ.
BACHHA @ NIHAL PASI ....Petitioner (In Jail)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 76580 of 2011, decided on 1st June, 2012)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Deepak Mishra, Mahendra Pratap Yadav and Arun Kumar Mishra for the Petitioner; Nitin Gupta, A.G.A. and A.S.G.I. for the Respondents.

Headnote:National Security Act, 1980—Sections 3(2), 3(5), 8 and 12—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 307 and 504—Arms Act, 1959—Section 25—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 21—Preventive detention—Solitary incident—Disturbance of tempo life—Arson and rioting occurred—Traffic block on National Highway—His associates and petitioner murdered a person in a broad day light—Satisfaction of detaining authority based on relevant materials—Petitioner had moved bail application for his release in Court of first and Session Judge—Detention order passed to prevent anti social activities in future—Act of petitioner undoubtedly disturbed public order—Impugned order upheld. [Paras 11 and 14]

       Result; Petition Dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 25.10.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad respondent No. 3 by which the detaining authority in exercise of its power under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Act’) has ordered that the petitioner be detained in the Central Jail Naini, Allahabad stating the grounds of detention as required under Section 8 of the Act. The detention order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, respondent No. 3 on a solitary ground arising out of a solitary incident which is alleged to have taken place on 4.8.2011 at about 9:00 a.m. for which an F.I.R. was lodged by one Munna Tiger stating that he had gone to the house of his friend Vishwanath @ Fakirey for injecting medicine to his cow which was ill and he was sitting with Fakirey on a chair and was talking to him. In the meanwhile, the petitioner alongwith his associates had come there and started abusing Fakirey and suddenly the petitioner took out a fire-arm weapon from his waist and shot on the head of Fakirey thereafter the associates, who were accompanying the petitioner also fired at Fakirey from their weapon and all the persons exhorted the villagers and ran away towards them. Due to the said act of the petitioner and his associates, people of the village started closing their doors and windows and due to the firing of shots there was disturbance of public order in the village. The deceased, who succumbed to his injuries on the spot was taken to the doctor in Colvin hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor. An F.I.R. about the incident was lodged by the informant Munna Tiger, who was resident of village Ramman Ka Purwa at police station Dhoomanganj which was registered as Case Crime No. 331 of 2011 under Sections 302, 307, 504, I.P.C. and 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act. It was further mentioned in the grounds of detention that on 20.8.2011, the petitioner surrendered in the Court in connection with Case Crime No. 613 of 2008 under Section 25 Arms Act and he was taken into custody and sent to Central Jail Naini, Allahabad. The police in pursuance to the order passed by the Court on 30.8.2011, took the petitioner on remand on 1.9.2011. On the pointing out by the petitioner, a pistol of 9 m.m. bore which was used in the said crime was recovered. It has been further stated by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention that the petitioner being detained in judicial custody in the Central Jail Naini, Allahabad, his counsel and Pairokars have also filed a bail application in the Court of District and Session Judge, Allahabad for getting him released on bail and there was a likelihood that he would soon be released on bail from jail and again indulge in similar activities which were prejudicial to maintenance of public order, hence his detention under the Act in order to maintain public order, is necessary. The D.I.G., Allahabad vide his report dated 24th October, 2011 sent to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, respondent No. 3 had requested him to detain the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 3 (2) of the Act in order to maintain the public order.

3. The detention order dated 25.10.2011 was served upon the petitioner through respondent No. 4 in jail on 25.10.2011 itself. The detention order passed by the respondent No. 1 was approved on 2.11.2011 by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 3 (5) of the Act. The petitioner submitted his representation against the detention order to the District Magistrate and other authorities as mentioned in the grounds of detention through respondent No. 5 on 4.11.2011. The representation of the petitioner








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top