- (1.) Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P.and Sri Pramod Kumar Rai, appearing on behalf of Union of India.
(2.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Raju Khan alias Tyagi with the following prayers :- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 2.7.2012 and 21.8.2012 passed by respondent no. 1 and 2 respectively ( Annexure no. 1 and 2 to the writ petition ). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commnading the respondents not to give effect the impugned orders dated 2.7.2012 and 21.8.2012 passed by the respondent no. 1 and 2 respectively ( Annexure no. 1 and 2 to the writ petition). (c ) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from illegal detention under the National Security Act and also made an arrangement to release the petitioner from District Jail Budaun. (d) Issue any such other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (e) Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner.
(3.) The impugned orders dated 2.7.2012 and 21.8.2012 passed by District Magistrate, Budaun and State of U.P.respectively. The detention of the petitioner under section 3(2) of National Security Act has been challenged on the following grounds that :- A. Only under the political pressure and dirty village politics certain pressure was made upon the police personnel and the proposal with regard to the detention of the petitioner was sent by the station officer of police station Kotwali, district Budaun under National Security Act, 1980 and subsequently the same was recommended by the Circle Officer, Budaun to the Superintendent of Police, Budaun. B. While sending proposal of detention of the petitioner under the Act by the station officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Budaun and other authorities only on the ground that the petitioner is approaching to the court concerned for obtaining bail and after obtaining bail he may involve again in criminal activities and no other allegation has been made that there was any type of disturbance of law and order situation. C. No proper and credible evidence has been collected with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the said case and admittedly there is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner in the present case which is evident from the First Information Report as well as statement of witnesses itself. D. The allegation and ground on which the detention of the petitioner have been proposed and subsequently sanctioned under the Act is absolutely baseless while neither the petitioner is a criminal nor has invovled himself in a case in any type of criminal activities, the entire prosecution story developed agaiinst the petitioner during investigation is absolutely false, concocted and after thought. E. So far as the grounds and allegations of the petitioner are concerned the same are absolutely baseless and it cannot be said in any manner that the detention of the petitioner can be made under the Act only on the aforesaid ground. F. The sole ground of detention of the petitioner is that in case the petitioner is released on bail there may be possibility of repeated the offence by the petitioner while it cannot be said in any manner that after being released on bail the petitioner will involve in other further activities. G. After receiving the order of detention under the Act in jail, the representations have also made to the respondent no. 1 and 2 through the respondent no.3 but no information with regard to the decision taken by the respondent no. 1 and 2 thereon, has yet not been received by the petitioner. H. A wireless message was sent by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 8.8.2012 but no information has been given by the aforesaid wireless message on which any decision has been taken by the Central Government on the representation submitted by the petitioner. I. The recommendation for detention of the petitioner under the Act has been made by the police authority only on the basis of presumption that after being released on bail the petitioner may involve in certain other criminal activities even without any evidence but no such observation has been made that the petitioner may involve in disturbing law and order situation in any manner hence the orders of detention dated 2.7.2012 and 21.8.2012 passed under the Act are liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. J. The proceedings for detention under the Act was also initiated against co-accused Manav and the detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun but subsequently aforesaid detention order has been rejected by the Advisory Board, U.P. Lucknow. K. The first information report was lodged abgainst seven persons including main accused Fahim and Nadeem but except the petitioner neither any recommendation for detention of the other accsued has been made by any of police authority nor any such detention order under the Act has been passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun and this fact shows that the proceeding under the Act has been initiated against the petitioner only under great pressure or the persons having vested interest against the petitioner. L. The order of detention of the petitioner under the Act is absolutely illegal and also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. M. The entire proceeding of the detention of the petitioner and the orders of detention of the petitioner dated 2.7.2012 and 21.8.2012 are the violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, 22(5) of the Constitution of India. N. The petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before passed the impugned order against the petitioner which is also in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. O. In view of several pronouncement made by the Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court the order of detention issued on solitary ground has been held to be illegal and unjustified. P. The petitioner has submitted his representation to the State of Uttar Pradesh through this Chief Home Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The District Magistrate, Budaun and Union of India through Home Secretary, Central Ministry of Home ( Internal Security), North Block, New Delhi through the Superintendent of Jail, District Budaun but till date has not been decided and the same is still pending for consideration.;