Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav, JJ.
Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri Thru. Brother Mohd. Siraj – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Thru. Secy. Min. Of Home N.Delhi & Others - Respondents
Habeas Corpus No. 23475 of 2020
Decided On : 07-09-2021
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 153A, 292,292-A, 505 (2), 506, 509 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 161 - National Security Act, 1980 - Sections 3(2),3(4),12(1),8,9,10,11(1),13 - National Security Act, 1980 – Section 14 - Indian Evidence Act,1988 - Section 65-B - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 21,22(5),22(4),226 - Criminal intimidation - Detention of detenue/petitioner as given in grounds of detention (Annexure 8) accompanying impugned detention order are that one resident of Police Station District made a written report to effect detenue/petitioner had posted provocative post with intention of provoking the sentiments of Hindu society through his Facebook I.D., to which one made indecent comment which was supported by and other three-four persons by attacking Hindu religious sentiments and tried to increase religious fervor and threatened to kill and also tried to disturb peace in area- Said incident was published in daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ and ‘Amar Ujala’ - On account of act of detenue/petitioner in posting inflammatory post of offending material through his facebook various Hindu organizations and local persons were angry and gathered in area and raised slogans against inflammatory post of offending material and also blocked road because of which flow of normal life peace and discharge were disturbed and atmosphere of areawas very tense.
Finding of the court: This act of the detenue/petitioner was not directed against a single individual, but against the pubic at large having the effect of disturbing the even tempo of life of the community and thus breaching the ‘public order; - Court cannot substitute its own satisfaction for that of authority concerned and decide whether its satisfaction was reasonable or proper or whether in circumstances of matter person concerned should have been detained or not - It is often said and held that Courts do not even go into question whether facts mentioned in grounds of detention are correct or false - Avowed object of which being to prevent antisocial and subversive elements from imperilling welfare of country or security of nation or from disturbing public tranquility or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc - Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society - Authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society - Object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing so - There is no substance in plea of detenue/petitioner that impugned detention order and impugned order confirming detention order both are bad in law as they do not mention period of detention at first instance - Hence plea of detenue/petitioner in this regard has no force and same is rejected - Court are of view that plea of detenue/petitioner that there is delay in forwarding petitioner’s representation on part of respondent no has substance and on this count alone impugned detention order is liable to be quashed
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the detenue/petitioner, Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri, through his next friend/brother Mohd. Siraj, challenging the order of detention dated 17.09.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “N.S.A.”), the order of approval dated 25.09.2020 passed by the Under Secretary, Home (Confidential) Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 3(4) of the N.S.A. and the order of confirmation dated 28.10.2020 passed by the Under Secretary, Home (Confidential) Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 12(1) of the N.S.A.
2. During pendency of the instant writ petition, the State Government has extended the detention of the detenue/ petitioner for a further period of six months from the date of detention i.e. 17.09.2020, vide order dated 08.12.2020, which is also challenged by the detenue/petitioner by means of amendment.
3. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner/detenue impelling the third respondent (District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri) to clamp the impugned detention order against him are contained in grounds of detention. Facts relating to the detention of the detenue/petitioner as given in the grounds of detention (Annexure 8) accompanying the impugned detention order 17.09.2020 are that one Sagar Kapoor, s/o Brijesh Kapoor, resident of Bazarganj, Police Station Mohammadi, District Kheri made a written report to the effect that on 05.08.2020, at 8:39 P.M., the detenue/petitioner had posted provocative post with the intention of provoking the sentiments of Hindu society through his Facebook I.D., to which one Samreen Bano made indecent comment on 5.8.2020, which was supported by Mohd. Arif, Mohd. Shadab and other three-four persons by attacking the Hindu religious sentiments and tried to increase religious fervor and threatened to kill and also tried to disturb the peace in the area. On the basis of the said written report, F.I.R. No. 0595 of 2020, under Sections 153A, 292, 505 (2), 506, 509 I.P.C. and 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, at Police Station Mohammadi, District Kheri was registered on 06.08.2020 at 12:46 P.M. During the investigation, Sections 292/509 I.P.C. were dropped, however, Section 295-A I.P.C. was added. On 08.08.2021, the detenue/ petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. and sent to jail. The said incident was published in daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ and ‘Amar Ujala’. On account of the act of the detenue/petitioner in posting inflammatory post of offending material through his facebook, various Hindu organizations and local persons were angry and gathered in the area and raised slogans against the inflammatory post of offending material and also blocked the road, because of which, the flow of normal life, peace and discharge were disturbed and the atmosphere of the area was very tense. After deploying the additional police force and after serious efforts, the public order could be restored.
4. It has also been mentioned in the grounds that the detenue/ petitioner was confined to Jail but his Pairokars were trying for his release on bail and in this regard, a bail application on behalf of the detenue/petitioner was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Outline Court, Mohammadi, Kheri, which was rejected by the Court on 08.09.2020. Subsequently, again a bail application on behalf of the detenue/petitioner was filed before the Sessions Court, Kheri, on which 18.09.2021 was fixed for hearing. Therefore, there was a possibility that the detenue/petitioner if released on bail, shall again indulge in similar crime, which shall be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Further, there is strong possibility for violence between two communities, which could disturb the public order. It has further been stated that on the ba
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
