- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate. This habeas corpus petition has been filed for challenging an order of detention dated 9.8.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur in exercise of powers under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as "the NSA").
(2.) The grounds of detention was that on 7.5.2012 at 1.25 p.m., the petitioner Sonu Tiwari along with his five companions came riding on three motorcycles near the Students Union Crossing, they chased a Tavera car and near the Civil Court, they fired at Ranjit alias Pappu Nishad, as a result of which pane of the side window of the vehicle was broken. The car driver Suresh Paswan received injuries on his leg causing him to be badly injured. One bystander Ravi Paswan also received firearm injury due to the indiscriminate firing. Pappu jumped outside the vehicle and entered into the Vishal Mega Mart where glass panes were also damaged by the firing. By the action of the petitioner and his associates the shopkeepers began to run helter skelter after closing their shops and public order was disturbed. No one was willing to take the injured to the hospital and only on the intervention of the police, the injured was taken to the Medical College, Gorakhpur. The report of this incident was lodged at case crime No. 311 of 2012, under sections 307, 504, 506, IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, at PS Cantt. district Gorakhpur.
(3.) Four submissions were made by the learned counsel for the petitioner: (1) As the incident in question had taken place on 7.5.2012, there was no live-link between the prejudicial act of the petitioner and the rationale of clamping of the detention order on the petitioner had snapped on the date when the detention order had been issued as there was no need for detaining the petitioner under NSA almost three months after the date of occurrence. (2) The bail application of the petitioner had already been rejected by the Sessions Court on 9.8.2012, but this fact was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority when he passed the said order on the assumption that the Detenue was likely to be released on bail, hence it was necessary to pass the detention order. (3) The detention order passed by the District Magistrate was a rubber stamp of the points made in the proposal of the S.S.P., and it showed no application of mind. (4) There was delay in consideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 21.8.2012 by the Central Government and the District Magistrate.;