- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Respondent No.1-Sanjai Pratap Gupta alias Pappu (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') was detained pursuant to an order of detention passed under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short the 'Act'). The order dated 23-12-2002 was served on the detenu on that day itself. According to the order and grounds of detention, the activities of the detenu were considered to be prejudicial to public order. Specific reference was made to an incident dated 13-10-2002. One Anand Kumar Jain lost his life because of the firing done by the detenu and his associates. Attempt to take away the life of one Ajay Kumar Jain, son of aforesaid Anand Kumar Jain was made, but luckily he had escaped. Case was registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Reference was also made to several earlier incidents which according to the detaining authority highlighted the criminal antecedents of the detenu and as to how he was creating a sense of terror in the minds of the general public. With a view to prevent him from committing similar prejudicial acts and to maintain public order the order of detention was purportedly passed.
(3.) A habeas corpus petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') by the detenu questioning validity of the order of detention. By the impugned judgment the High Court accepted the prayer and quashed the order of detention. Before the High Court stand of the detenu was that the two aspects highlighted in the grounds of detention were not separable and were intimately linked with one another. As necessary documents to substantiate the allegations relating to earlier incidents were not supplied to the detenu that rendered the order of detention invalid.;