S.R. Alam and R.S. Tripathi, JJ. - (1.) Both the aforesaid writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against the order passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad dated 22.7.2003 detaining the petitioners under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the Act) because of their involvement in Case Crime No. 66043030257 of 2003 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 304, Indian Penal Code, Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. Since in both the petitions the impugned order of detention is based on similar accusations and pleadings of the parties are also similar and identical to each other and also as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties both the petitions heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record. We have heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents and Shri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India.
(3.) Although in the writ petitions the order of detention has been impugned on several grounds but during the course of argument learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly confined his submission to the point that there was no material before the detaining authority that there is every possibility of the petitioners being released on bail and in the event of release they will indulge in similar prejudicial activities and that is why the detaining authority has not indicated such satisfaction in the order of detention nor in the grounds of detention, which made the order of detention invalid.;