- (1.) G. Malviya, J. The petitioner Afzal Ahmad has been detained in pur suance of an order dated 15-1-1991 passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh under ' ection 3 (2) of the National Security Act. The grounds of detention which were served on him have also been annexed with the present petition by which the petitioner has challenged the validity of his detention in pursuance of the said order and grounds.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the grounds on which the petitioner has been detained reads as follows: "on 8-12-1990 at about 3. 00 p. m. in Qasba Atrauli you Afzal Ahmad son of Maqbool Khan aged about 20 years with a view to create communal tension and terror in the said Qasba threw a bomb in the shop of Chetan Swarup son of Chaturbhuj Dayal. The said bomb got exploded in your hands with the result you got injured. On account of the bomb blast, people started running away after closing their shops and the entire market was closed. People hid themselves in their houses. The Hindus in the locality started feeling insecured and on account of the said conduct of yours, the public order got disturbed. A first information report bearing Crime No. 370/90 under Section 307 I PC read with Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered at police station Atrauli which was pending investi gation. You are in jail but are likely to be released in near future. On your release from jail, there is every possibility that you would again indulge in similar activity and cause disturbance of pnblic order not only in the Qasba put in the entire district. Consequently with a view to prevent you from acting in such similar manner, it is necessary to preventively detain you. " In the present petition, the petitioner asserted that he was lad of about 16 years and that it could not be expected that he could indulge in au activity which could disturb the public order of the locality. In support of his claim about being 16 years old, the petitioner had annexed his school leav ing certificate as annesecure-5 to the petition, in which his date of birth was shown to be 20-5-74. If this school leaving certificate is correct, it is obvious that on the date of the alleged incident i. e. 8-12-1990 the petitioner would have been about 16 years old. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by the detaining authority, para 10 of the petition in which asserted the petitioner to be 16 years old, annexing the transfer certificate, has been replied as follows : "that the contents of para 10 of the petition are incorrect and denied. The age of the petitioner is 20 years according to G. D. entry No. 25, dated 8-12-90 and it is wrong to say that the age of the peti tioner is 16 years. It would be seen that the genuineness of the transfer-certificate annexed with the petition has not been doubted and the age has been denied only on the basis of the general diary entry. It is obvious that the Head Constable of the Police Station who might have recorded the age of the petitioner in the G. D. could not be personally sware about the age of the petitioner. Once the genuineness of the transfer- certificate has not been challenged by the counter affidavit, it is to be found that the petitioner was hardly 16j years at the time of the alleged incident.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaimala v. Home Secretary AIR 1982 SC 1297, it cannot be expected that the petitioner who was aged about 16 years at the time of the incident could indulge into aa activity which could be a serious threat to the maintenance of public order. Before we advert to the said judgment of the Supreme Court it appears necessary to look into the other facts which have come to light on the basis of the material which has been supplied to the petitioner along with the detention order to see what was the real role played by the petitioner giving rise to his detention under the National Security Act.;