- (1.) K. K. Misra, J. Both the above habeas corpus writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned detention orders dated 7-5-04 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti, respondent No. 2, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The impugned detention orders dated 7-5-04 have been passed on the basis of the one and the same F. I. R. , hence all the petitions are disposed of by a common order.
(2.) IN the grounds of detention, Annexure-2 to the petition, it is stated that on 21-2-04 at about 9 p. m. in Mohalla Rahmatganj, P. S. Kotwali, District Basti when informant Mohd. Ashraf along with his brother Akmal Khan and some other persons of his Mohalla was going to his house and reached near the house of the Zaka Ullah and his brother Wasi Ullah, they along with his associates were standing there and upon seeing them they began to hurl abuses on the Corporator Akmal Khan. When the informant and his companions objected, Wasi Ullah and INayat Ullah fired upon Akmal Khan Corporator. Others exhorted that he was involved in the snatching of their Mobile. The shot hit Akmal Khan and the case crime No. 200 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the petitioners and their associates at P. S. Kotwali, District Basti. It is further stated that due to the incident, atmosphere of terror and fear prevailed in the locality and the public order was completely disturbed. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard Sri Chandra Kesh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned A. G. A. as well as Sri J. Lal, counsel for the Union of India.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the incident which has been made basis for passing the impugned detention order gives rise to maintenance of law and order only. He further argued that the incident took place in the night. Only one person was done to death and it has come in the F. I. R. that the incident took place in connection with the snatching of a Mobile. No passerby sustained any injury and the incident took place in a residential area. THE crime was committed due to personal enmity. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of Mrs. T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu & others, 1990 (1) JIC 832 (SC) : (1990) 3 SCJ 303. The question for consideration in the present case is whether the incident in question, on the basis of which the petitioners have been detained by invoking the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Act, relates to disturbance of maintenance of public order or it is merely a case of breach of law and order. After going through the grounds of detention and the F. I. R. , we are of the opinion that the present incident related to the maintenance of law and order only and not public order. We find that the incident was the result of personal enmity committed against an individual only and it did not affect the public at large.;