Point of Law : Preventive detention - satisfaction of the detaining authority with regard to existence of reasons justifying the order of preventive detention against the petitioner suffers from lack of independent application of mind, which renders the subjective satisfaction of the authority vitiated in the eyes of law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Detention orders of different dates, founded on a common basis, have been passed against three petitioners, which are under challenge in the present bunch of habeas corpus writ petitions. We have heard all three petitions together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.5 of 2022 is treated as the leading case wherein the order of detention passed by District Magistrate, Bijnor is challenged alongwith the order of the State Government approving it and the order rejecting petitioner’s representation. Orders extending the term of detention, from time to time, are also assailed. Similar reliefs are claimed in the other connected petitions, as well.

3. Basis of impugned detention orders in all three cases is the implication of petitioners in the First Information Report dated 19.5.2021, registered as Case Crime No.291 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor. This FIR requires a little elaboration at the outset. Informant in the said FIR is one Rajeev son of Chhatrapal, resident of Village Baseda, Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor, whose brother Sanjay was killed at 8.30 pm on 18.5.2021. The FIR was lodged on 19.5.2021 at 1.44 am. As per the FIR the accused persons namely Ajab Singh, Nikhil Kumar, Shailendra Singh, Parvendra Kumar and Sunil Kumar maintained enmity with the informant and his family, since they had not voted for Ajab Singh,when he contested for the office of Village Pradhan, despite request made in that regard. On 18.5.2021 at about 8.30 pm accused persons armed with country made firearm (Tamancha), gun and other arms attacked the informant’s house and Ajab Singh shot dead the informant’s brother Sanjay. Other accused including the three petitioners are said to have indiscriminately fired creating an atmosphere of terror in the village. The incident is alleged to have been seen by Brahmapal son of Gangaram, Kalyan son of Atar Singh and Ranpal son of Zileram. It is claimed in the FIR that widespread fear prevailed in the village and people were running helter-skelter. The villagers had locked themselves in their houses by shutting their doors and windows from inside. Specific role of firing in which the deceased died however is attributed to Ajab Singh while all other accused (three petitioners herein) were assigned the role of carrying Tamancha (Country made Pistol) and Bandook (gun) and indiscriminately firing upon the informant’s side. All three petitioners were arrested and applied for bail. It is at this stage that the Station House Officer recommended action against the petitioners under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1980’) leading to petitioners’ detention under the Act of 1980.

4. The chronology of events in the leading Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.5 of 2022 is that the order of detention came to be passed against the petitioner on 27.8.2021 by the District Magistrate, Bijnor on the basis of a recommendation made by the sponsoring authority. This order has also been approved by the State Government on 6.9.2021. It is alleged that a representation was made against the detention order by the petitioner on 6.9.2021. However, an issue was raised about the filing of representation on the said date and consequently we summoned the original records to find that the representation in fact was made only on 8.9.2021 instead of 6.9.2021, as is alleged in the petition. Upon a perusal of original records it transpires that the representation was sent on the same date to the office of District Magistrate, Bijnor and the Additional District Magistrate, Bijnor on behalf of the District Magistrate called for the comments of Superintendent of Police, Bijnor in the matter. The representation was consequently sent to the Station House Officer of the concerned police station for his comments in the matter. The commen