- (1.) VISHNU Sahai, J. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Mumtaj Ahmad Khan has impugned the order dated 25. 8. 2001 passed by the second respondent Mr. R. A. Prasad, District Magistrate, Sultanpur, detaining him under section 3 (3) of the National Security Act.
(2.) THE detention order alongwith grounds of detention, which are also dated 25. 8. 2001, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 25. 8. 2001 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure-l to the supplementary affidavit filed by Sayeed Ahmad (deponent in the writ petition) and petition respectively. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu prompting the second respondent to issue the detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on two case crime numbers, namely, Case Crime No. 281 of 2001 under section 452/302 I. P. C. registered on 21. 7. 2001 on the basis of an F. I. R. lodged by Ram Chandra Gupta at P. S. Kudwar, district Sultanpur and Case Crime No. 282 of 2001 under section 4/25 of Arms Act registered at P. S. Kudwar district Sultanpur. The details pertaining to the said case crimes are as under: We begin with Case Crime No. 281 of 2001. On 21. 7. 2001 at about 6 A. M. the detenu is alleged to have entered into the house of the informant Ram Chandra Gupta. At that time, the informant's sister Nanhaka was attending to the daily chores. The detenu assaulted her with a knief, threw her on the ground, cut her neck and killed her. Thereafter, the detenu is said to have run away. As a consequence of the act of the detenu, tension between the Hindus and Muslims was generated in the village and the people of the village closed doors of their houses. The result was that the public order was adversely affected. The details relating to Case Crime No. 282 of 2001 in short are that on 22. 7. 2001 at about 8. 15 P. M. the Station House Officer incharge of Police Station, Kudwar arrested the petitioner-detenu and recovered a knife from him.
(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid case crime numbers, the detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that in order to curb the petitioner-detenu from committing similar prejudicial activities in future, it was, imperative to detain him vide the impugned order. A perusal of the grounds of detention would also show that the detaining authority has expressed therein his awareness that the detenu was in custody in Case Crime Nos. 281 of 2001 and 282 of 2001 and was trying to come out on bail in the said case Crime numbers and on 10. 8. 2001 had filed a bail application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur.;