M. C. Jain, J. - (1.) -The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 14.1.2002 passed against him by respondent No. 3 District Magistrate, Mau under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and his continued detention thereunder.
(2.) THE grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. THE first ground is that on 13.4.1995 at about 7.45 p.m., he with his associate Shiv Prasad Singh had fired on one Kamla Kant, though he had escaped unhurt. Crime No. 34 of 1995 under Section 307, I.P.C. was registered at police station, Ranipur, District Mau in which charge-sheet had been submitted. He had secured bail in that case. That incident disturbed the public order. People ran helter-skelter and an atmosphere of terror and insecurity was created in the area. The second ground is that on 6.6.1997 at about 9.30 p.m., he with his associates Brijesh Kumar Singh and Sanjay Singh assaulted Hari Lal Singh with lathis and caused injuries to him at the tubewell of Dadan Singh in village Ranipur. In respect of this incident, Crime No. 91 of 1997 under Sections 323/325/504, I.P.C. was registered at police station Ranipur, District Mau. The said incident disturbed the public order. The shops were closed and the people started taking shelter to save their lives. The third ground is that on 5.1.2002 at about 3 p.m. in Ranipur, he along with his associate Shiv Prasad Singh assaulted Muvattar Raza (tenant of Shiv Prasad Singh) at his clinic under his tenancy, though in respect of the tenancy, a case was also pending. He was first attacked with rods and thereafter he was shot in his abdomen. While fleeing, each of them fired two shots for scaring away all those nearby, creating an atmosphere of terror. People started shutting down their shops and ran hither and thither to save themselves. The public order was greatly disturbed. The victim being of minority community, communal tension erupted. Crime No. 4 of 2002 under Section 307, I.P.C. and Crime Nos. 5 and 6 of 2002 under Section 25, Arms Act came to be registered with regard to this incident. He and his associate were allegedly arrested after being chased for a short distance and illicit weapons were recovered.
(3.) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard Sri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for Union of India, respondent No. 1 and learned A.G.A. for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds on which the detention order has been passed could, at the best, relate to law and order but not to public order. It has also been urged that the first incident of 1995 was too stale to provide a ground for passing the impugned detention order on 14.1.2002. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has made reference to Section 5A of the National Security Act that the grounds of detention are severable. His submission is that the detention order can even be passed on the basis of a single incident. He has also referred to the case of Kamal Pramanik v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 730, to strengthen his argument that gap between the incidents providing the grounds for passing the impugned detention order is not material. In that case, the detention order had been passed after about a year after happening of the alleged incidents. The detention order was necessitated because criminal cases could not proceed and the detenu was discharged, he being a dangerous person against whom the witnesses were afraid to depose.;