- (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 19-5-2003 detaining the petitioner under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record.
(2.) WE have heard Sri S. M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri J. Lal learned Additional Government Advocate for the Union of India-respondent No. 4. Although several points have been urged in the writ petition against the order of detention but the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly confined his submission to the point that the incident in which the petitioner is alleged to have been involved, does not relate to public order. He vehemently contended that the alleged incident took place on a house and there is no eye-witness nor there was any material before the detaining authority to show that on account of the alleged act 'public order' was disturbed, hence the impugned order of detention was not warranted. He further placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kripal Singh v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1986 Criminal Law Journal 1437. On the other hand, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that at the instance of the petitioner recovery was made from co-accused Danish and others. It is also contended that when the police made attempt to arrest, the petitioner and his associates fired from their country made pistol. The petitioner was however arrested but his other associate Danish managed to escape and for that reason Case Crime No. 38, 39 under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act along with Case Crime No. 36 of 2003 under Sections 394, 302, 412 and 120-B, IPC are registered against them. It is submitted that on account of the alleged act of the petitioner public order of the locality was badly disturbed and, therefore, the impugned order of detention is justified.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions made on both sides. From the perusal of the grounds of detention, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it is apparent that the incident had taken place inside the house on 19-4-2003 between 2 to 5 p. m. Admittedly, nobody has claimed to have seen the occurrence, therefore, the manner and place of occurrence, in our view, does not suggest that the alleged incident in any view of the matter comes within the parameter of 'public order'.;