R.C.Deo Sharma, J. - (1.) Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of his detention under the provisions of the National Security Act. The District Magistrate Bara Banki by his order dated 24-4-1982 and in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980, ordered the detention of the petitioner on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention which were also served on the petitioner the same day, mentioned the following incidents which led to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate in the passing of the aforesaid order. A. The petitioner along with his associates committed dacoity at the house of Pooranmasi in Subedar purwa hamlet of village Nasirpur on the night between 1st and 2nd June, 1981. They were armed with deadly weapons and assaulted Pooranmasi and his wife and also looted property. When the petitioner was arrested on 19-1-1982 during investigations of the said case he confessed his guilt but when he was put up for identification on 5-4-1982 the witnesses did not identify him due to fear and consequently a final report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made and the petitioner discharged. B. On 3-6-1981 the petitioner along with his associates armed with deadly weapons including fire-arms committed dacoity at the house of Bhulai and also caused injuries to his brother Khushi Ram and Mewa Lal. During investigations his complicity in the crime came to be known and when on 19-1-1982 he was arrested he confessed his guilt. On being put up for identification the witnesses did not identify him due to fear and accordingly he was discharged on a final report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal procedure. C. Again, on 4-9-1981, the petitioner with his associates armed with deadly weapons committed dacoiiy at the house of Chauhan and when his brother Nankaoo tried to intervene they were fired at as a result of which Chauhan died and! Nankaoo suffered serious injuries. The petitioner was arrested on 19-1-1982 during investigations but when put up for identification on 5-4-1982 the witnesses out of fear did not identify him and accordingly a final report was made and the petitioner discharged. D. On 10-1-1982 the police received information that a gang of dacoits was to assemble near a tree to commit dacoity at the house of Raja Maharaja and accordingly the police immediately went into action and surrounded the dacoits. Three of the dacoits were arrested including the petitioner and a case under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. was pending against the petitioner and others. The petitioner was, however, granted bail in this case but as he was also under detention in another case under Section 400 I.P.C. (belonging to a gang of dacoits) and was likely to be released on bail with the result that he could again indulge into such nefarious activities hence his preventive detention was considered necessary.
(2.) All these incidents were said to have created panic and resulted into breach of public order and hence with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order the District Magistrate felt satisfied and passed the order of detention as aforesaid.
(3.) It has not been disputed that the petitioner's representation against his detention was considered within reasonable time and rejected and his detention order was confirmed after the matter was referred to the Advisory Board. Although it was alleged in the petition that information about the rejection of the representation was not communicated to the petitioner but after an averment was made in the counter-affidavit indicating that the information about the rejection of the representation was duly communicated to him through wireless and otherwise, this plea had not been pressed.;