S.K.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THESE two connected petitions were preferred by Sandeep Singh and Ramakant Singh. Both of them were arrayed as accused under Sections 147/148/149/307/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Maharajganj, District Azamgarh, in connection with an incident that had taken place on 13 -8 -2002 at about 11.30 a.m.
(2.) INITIALLY a Kabaddi competition was going on between two sections of the village. During the course of Kabaddi match a free fight took place between the villagers supporting the two sections of the players. The parties retreated back to their residences from the play ground after the game being disturbed. Some of them were present at the Marhai of Ramjeet Rajbhar alias Jittan including deceased Km. Manisha and the aforesaid Ramjeet. The two petitioners along with number of others came armed with firearms to this place where Ramjeet was sitting along with others. They challenged them and opened indiscriminate fire upon the persons present with Ramjeet. This caused injuries to Ramjeet Rajbhar, Km. Manisha and some others. Out of them Ramjeet Rajbhar alias Jittan and Km. Manisha breathed their last later on. A report was lodged. The case on their demise was converted into under Section 302 I.P.C., apart from the sections referred to above. The report was lodged by Smt. Kailashi Devi, wife of Ramjeet Rajbhar, on that very day. From a perusal of the grounds of detention it is apparent that on account of this incident the people of the village have completely shut themselves into their houses. They were not prepared to speak out or do anything. This averment shows the degree of fear and panic in their minds. The S.I., K.P. Singh, of P.S. Maharajganj, gave a R.T. set message to his senior officers in the district. One and half section of the P.A.C. was posted in the village to maintain peace and harmony. This fact is verified by the G.D. Entry No. 28 dated 13 -8 -2002 made at 6.45 p.m. at the concerned police station. The present order of detention came into existence as a consequence of the said incident of violence and the panic created by the incident in the minds of the residents of the concerned village. It was alleged in the grounds of detention that the public order in the village was completely disrupted by the act of the petitioners and their cohorts.
(3.) THE basic contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions is that the detention orders were passed without any application of mind and mechanically. The other contention is that the incident gave rise to purely a law and order problem and did not cause any public order disruption. There is no averment in the grounds of the detention that disruption to the public order lasted for long. Mere posting of P.A.C. in the village does not in itself provide any clue to the degree of disturbance to public order. The allegations that on being released on bail they are likely to repeat the offence or indulge in similar act is not based upon any reasonable evidence. Therefore, the order of detention is bad in law.;