M. C. Jain, J. - (1.) -The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 31.5.2003, passed against him by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate , Jalaun at Oral under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980.
(2.) THE grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-4 to the petition. THE petitioner was involved with his associates in slaughtering as many as 103 cows on 21.2.2003 at about 2.15 p.m. at a place within Police Station Kotwali, Kalpi. S.I. C. L. Arun, accompanied by certain other police personnel had reached the scene of slaughter on getting information through an informer. 16 other cows, 17 she-calves and one he-calf were also found tethered there for being slaughtered. THE slaughtering of cows on such a large scale created an atmosphere of communal tension in the area, disturbing public order and tranquillity. Sufficient force had to be deployed to control the situation. THE communal tension created by the incident was so intense that the students of different colleges and members of political parties took out a procession through the markets shouting communal slogans and despite all efforts, the entire market was closed on 24.2.2003. A case under Section 3/5/8 of U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act was registered. We have heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned A.G.A. for respondents. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged.
(3.) ON consideration, we are of the opinion that this matter certainly pertains to public order. The incident of slaughtering of cows did disturb the public order and communal harmony of the society. Communal tension came to be created by this incident and sufficient force had to be deployed for the restoration of normalcy. The sentiments of the members of the Hindu community were bound to be hurt by slaughtering of cows at such a large scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner also did not contend that it was not a matter of public order and was confined to law and order only. In the grounds of the petition also, it has not been challenged that the matter did not fall within the purview of the public order. So finding it to be a case of public order, we proceed to consider the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate concerned did not record his satisfaction that there was real possibility of the petitioner being released on bail and that on being released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities. We should point out that documents accompanying the detention order and referred to therein form composite bundle of material. We find that narrating the incident and grave adverse repercussions produced by it on public order, the District Magistrate did record his satisfaction on the above aspect of the matter and contention of learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold good. He has reiterated also in his affidavit that after receiving police report along with documents, he had gone through the same and considered the entire facts and circumstances independently. He was satisfied on the consideration that the activity of the petitioner created panic and terror in and around the area and communal tension in between two communities was generated. The additional force had to be deployed to control the situation. He was also satisfied that the petitioner was trying to get himself released on bail and after release he would indulge in such similar activities. It was in consequence of having been so satisfied that the detention order was passed by him.;