- (1.) IN the instant petition the sole petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the District Magistrate, Jaunpur dated 29-3-2004 detaining him under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') because of his involvement in case crime No. 169 of 2004, under Sections 302/307/504, IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties and are on record. We have heard Shri Anurag Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arvind Tripathi, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri N. I. Jafri, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India, respondent No. 4. Although several points have been raised in the writ petition but learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument urged only two points. Firstly, that the detaining authority did not record his satisfaction about the possibility of the petitioner being enlarged on bail in near future, which vitiates the order of detention in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat and another v. Union of India and others, 1990 SC 1196, and secondly, that the delay of five days in disposing the representation has not been explained by the Union of India in its counter-affidavit and, therefore, non-explanation of the delay in the disposal of the representation vitiates the continued detention of the petitioner.
(3.) ON the other heard, Shri Arvind Tripathi, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State-respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the detaining authority having satisfied with the material placed before him passed the order of detention and in para 5 of his counter-affidavit it has been stated that after having been satisfied about the possibility of the detenu being released on bail in near future, he passed the order of detention. Shri N. I. Jafri, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that the representation of the petitioner was received on 15-4-2004 and was disposed of on 20-4-2004 within six days and, therefore, there was no abnormal delay in the disposal of the representation. We have considered the submissions made on both sides.;