( 1. ) THE petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for his release.

( 2. ) THE police of Sakarpur police-station, Delhi, registered crime no. 165/81 for offences under sections 385, 365, 342, 344 and 364 of the indian Penal Code against the petitioner. By order dated 7th July 1981 the petitioner who is a resident of Datia was granted anticipatory bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahadara, Delhi. By the same order the petitioner was directed to appear before the police at Datia on 10th July 1981. When the petitioner appeared as directed before the police at datia, he was arrested and released on the basis of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The petitioner was again arrested on the same date, i. e. 10th July 1981, for an offence under section 11 of the Madhya pradesh Dakaiti Prabhavit Kshetra Adhyadesh, 1981 (hereinafter called the ordinance) in connection with crime No. 215/81 registered in Kotwali datia.

( 3. ) THE petitioner was also formally arrested some time after 10th july 1981 by Gwalior police for an offence under section 365, Indian Penal code registered as crime No. 122/80. The Gwalior police produced the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, on 28th July 1981. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail of Rs. 5,000.

( 4. ) IT will thus appear that the petitioner has been directed to be released on bail for offences registered in Delhi and Gwalior and he continues to be under detention because of his arrest under section 11 of the ordinance. The petitioner moved for bail in the Gwalior Bench of the high Court for this offence also but the application was rejected by navkar, J. , on 10th September 1981. The petitioner in this petition contends that his arrest for the offence under section 11 is wholly illegal for on the material before the police there could not exist any reasonable suspicion for the commission of the said offence or grounds for believing that the accusation or information against him is well founded to warrant his arrest and detention under sections 41 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the petitioners arrest and detention are in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is the correctness of this contention which we have to examine in this petition.

( 5. ) THE facts stated in the return justifying the arrest of the petitioner under section 11 of the Ordinance, briefly stated, are as follows: One brijmohan of Delhi was abducted by Raju Bhatnagar and his associates at delhi on 12th April 1981. Brijmohan was kept in a house at Delhi under wrongful confinement from 12th April 1981 to 30th May 1981 by Raju and his four associates who armed with revolvers, stengun and handgrenades constantly kept a watch on him and threatened to cause his death in case bis parents did not pay rupees two lacs as ransom for his release. Brijmohan was forced to write a number of letters to his parents entreating them to fulfil the demand of the abductors. Brijmohans father Laxmi Narain was asked to pay a sum of rupees two lacs as ransom to the petitioner at Datia. On 2nd May 1981 Laxmi Narain, his another son Moolchand and one ratanchand came to Datia. They met the petitioner and one Lilly who is an associate of the petitioner. They showed the letter written by brijmohan. The petitioner told them to pay rupees two lacs for release of brijmohan and he also said that in case the money was not paid, Raju will kill Brijmohan. Laxmi Narain tried to persuade the petitioner and Lilly to reduce the amount and then he came back to Delhi. Laxmi Narain again went to Datia on 25th May 1981 with Ratanchand. He paid Rs. 80,000 in cash and gave gold ornaments of the value of rupees one lac to the petitioner. After the ransom was received by the petitioner, Laxmi Narain was told by the petitioner and Lilly that Brijmohan would reach his home i