VISHNU SAHAI, J. - (1.) Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-detenu Sonu alias Ajai Vikram Upadhayay has impugned the order dated 31-5-2003, passed by Mr. Ram Kumar, District Magistrate, Sultanpur (opposite party No. 3) detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The detention order, along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 31-5-2003, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 31-5-2003 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition.
(2.) The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu impelling the 3rd opposite party (District Magistrate, Sultanpur) to issue the impugned detention order against him, are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure No. 2). A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on a solitary C.R. namely, C.R. No, 163 of 2003, under Section 302, I.P.C. and S, 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 1-3-2003, lodged at 11.10 a.m., at Police Station Dostpur, by Smt. Indrapati, wife of Ram Nayak. In short, the details pertaining to the said C.R, are as under: On 1-3-2003, at 10.00 a.m., detenu Sonu alias Ajai Vikram Upadhayay along with his associate Sonu alias Pawan Kumar Shukla went to the shop of Tilthu Agrahari in Kasba Chitepatti within the limits of police station Dostpur, district Sultanpur. The detenu sent Sonu alias Pawan Kumar Shukla to call Ghirau alias Ram Nayak Vishwakarma from his shop. The latter forcibly brought Ghirau alias Ram Nayak Vishwakarma to the shop of Tilthu Agrahari, where the detenu was sitting. Thereafter, the detenu abused Ghirau alias Ram Nayak Vishwakarma and the informant. Ghirau alias Ram Nayak Vishwakarma asked the detenu not to abuse him. Thereupon, Sonu alias Pawan Kumar Shukla caught hold of both the hands of Ghirau alias Ram Nayak Vishwakarma and the detenu fired upon him. Thereafter, the detenu and his associate ran away. Informant made unsuccessful bid to catch them. In the grounds of detention, it has been mentioned that as a consequence of the prejudicial act committed by the petitioner-detenu and his associate commotion and fear psychosis was created at the place of the incident and in the market and people entered inside their houses and closed their shops. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that in order to prevent the petitioner-detenu from committing such prejudicial acts, the Detaining Authority thought it imperative to detain him vide the impugned detention order.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.;