Santosh Kumar Phaujdar, J. - (1.) IN the present writ petition, an order of detention of Ashok Tyagi under Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980, has been Challenged. The impugned order was recorded by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, on 28.10.1993 (copy annexed to the writ petition as Annexure -1) and was served upon the petitioner in Tihar Jail where he had been detained in connection with certain substantive offences. He was also served with the grounds of detention (copy annexed to the writ petition as Annexure -2). He filed a representation which was considered by the State Government and the representation was rejected. The matter was also referred to the Advisory Committee. A copy of the representation was also sent to the Advisory Committee and after the receipt of the report of the Advisory Committee, the order of detention for one year was confirmed. In the present writ for Habeas Corpus, the petitioner challenged the order of detention as also his continuing detention on several grounds, We shall, however, confine ourselves to only three grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as, in our opinion a decision Oh these three points would be sufficient to dispose of the present writ petition.
(2.) TO consider these grounds, certain facts need to be mentioned at the outset. As already stated, the detention was followed by a copy of grounds of detention and the grounds, inter alia, stated that on 8.4.1992, the petitioner with others, being armed with AK -47 Rifle, had gone to the premises of Bharat Udyog, Meerut Road, Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad and made enquiries about one Vishwendra and when resisted by the Security Personnel, they went away threatening Vishwendra with dire consequences. The action of the petitioner and others, according to the statements made in the grounds of detention had affected the public order in the locality. A case under Section 384/506 IPC was initiated against them. The grounds further stated, giving a list of eight cases, that the petitioner in the past had committed offences for which those cases were started and public order was at peril at his hands. It was also stated that in all these cases, the petitioner was successful in getting bail and he was trying to come out of the jail custody and it was apprehended, if he is out of jail, he would again engage himself in activities affecting the public order, and so it was necessary to record an order of detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The grounds were appended with the materials on which the District Magistrate had based his opinion and they included the reports and recommendations of the police authorities, the copies of the first information Reports in the concerned cases, statements of certain persons, copies of extracts from different news papers and copies of Bail Application and orders thereon. Of the list mentioning the papers, the learned AGA could show only three bail applications and orders thereon concerning two offences in the list mentioned in the grounds and one offence (Case No. 319/92) which is not in the list of offences. After the admission of the writ petition, the respondents were asked to submit counter affidavit and one counter affidavit came from the District Magistrate who had recorded the detention order. The District Magistrate asserted that the petitioner had every possibility of coming out of the Jail and committing offences affecting public order and so the proceedings under the National Security Act were stared. There was a counter affidavit on behalf of Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi and he made certain relevant disclosure in paragraph 6 of his counter affidavit. According to him, there were as many as twelve cases pending against the petitioner, Ashok Tyagi, and amongst those cases FIR No. 381 of 1992 of P.S. Ram Krishna Puram, New Delhi, FIR No. 152 of 1992 of P.S. Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P., FIR No. 161 of 1992 of P.S. Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. FIR No. 122 of 1991 of P.S. Mansarovar Park, New Delhi and FIR No. 549 of 1985 of P.S, Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi, were the cases wherein the petitioner had not been released on bail. Tallying this list of cases with that given in the grounds of detention, we find that only two of the cases in these two lists are common, being Case No. 152 of 1982 and case No. 161 of 1992 both of P.S. Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is three -fold, (i) it was stated that the District Magistrate had not given to the petitioner the copies of all relevant materials (ii) the District Magistrate had not considered all relevant facts and (iii) the petitioner had been in custody and there was no possibility of his coming out of jail and the detention order in this light was also bad.;