- (1.) J. K. Mathur, J. This petition for habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks quashing of an order passed on 27-4-1993 by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur under Section 3 of the National Security Act, requiring the petitioner to be detained.
(2.) THE grounds furnished to the petitioner disclose that on 5-3-1993 Anis and Chunna with their mother and the appellant were travelling in a bus from Rath to Orai. As it reached near a temple in village Etayal a white Maruti van came before the bus and stopped it. THE petitioner and others got into the bus, they were armed with rifle and guns and dragged Anis, Chunna and Hanif. THEy shouted for help but none dared to help them. THEse three persons were taken out from the bus and put in the Maruti van. THE persons in the bus were threatened. THE three persons were taken into the Jungle and at a distance of one furlong, two of them were made to put their clothes off. Anis and Chunna were shot while Hanif escaped. He concealed himself during the day being naked and then went to his house and thereafter to the police station, in the meantime the Chowkidar of village Sarseda found the dead bodies and reported about them at the police station. THE petitioner surrendered himself before the Special Judge at Jhansi on 6-3-1993. He was transferred to Hamirpur. THE petitioner and other accused were remanded to the police custody and they made statements leading to certain recoveries. On 7-4-1993 while coming to Hamirpur from Jhansi the petitioner managed to go to Rath and called the driver, conductor and a witness of the offence and obtained affidavit in his favour. Since then these persons have not been traced. One of the witnesses travelling in the bus was also threatened by him. THE petitioner had also committed the murder of one Ayub in 1990 and had thrown his body on the road to terrorise the people. THE Muslims of the locality are feeling insecure and have been terrorised by the acts of the petitioner. The detention was challenged firstly on the ground that extranuous matter had been considered by the detaining authority, that relevant material had not been considered, showing non-application of mind and that the incident could not have resulted in disturbance of public order. In respect of first contention, it was pointed out that the life sketch of the petitioner was placed before the detaining authority containing a number of allegations against the petitioner in" respect of which no material was available for producing before the detaining authority. Annexure No. 12 contains the said life sketch. It mentions amongst others that the peti tioner had been elected as a President of Bar Association because of his terror, that he was a member of Raju Bhatnagar gang and had become its leader after the death of Raju Bhatnagar. It is also stated that he was right-hand man of Charls Shobhraj, a notorious international criminal and that he used to harbour and help Raju Bhatnagar. He joined him in a number of criminal interprises and committed a number of abductions, dacoities murders etc. His main modus was to demand money after kidnapping. He then became a member of the Congress party and obtained a Law Degree. It also gave out a number of cases which had been registered against the petitioner, and that the petitioner had grabbed huge area of land.
(3.) THE petitioner has alleged that there was no material available with the sponsoring authority or the detaining authority to show that the petitioner had any connection with Charles Shobhraj or Raju Bhatnagar or the manner in which he had become the President of the Bar Association. THEre was also no material to show that he had grabbed land aforesaid. All these facts which went to instil prejudice against the petitioner were considered by the detaining authority, it is alleged, without there being any material to support and it was, therefore, urged that the order of detention was based on extranuous material. On behalf of the detaining authority it was said in the affidavit filed by him that his satisfaction was not influenced by any material other than the one mentioned in the grounds of detention and that these facts were not taken by him into account.;