B.K. Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 6.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from his illegal detention in pursuance of the order dated 30.4.2015 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Baghpat and set him at liberty forthwith. A further prayer has been made for quashing the impugned order dated 30.4.2015 passed by the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Baghpat (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). The brief facts of the case are that on 31.1.2014 at about 3.30 P.M. while Smt. Sarla Devi, wife of Satyapal Singh was sitting in the gallery of her house in village Wajidpur within the limits of P.S. -Kotwali Baraut, district -Baghpat along with Ravindra, S/o Shyam Singh, R/o Gram Chunsa, P.S. -Bhaurakalan, district -Muzaffar Nagar and Dharmendra, S/o late Ram Niwas, R/o Gram -Kalina, district -Meerut, the petitioner along with Ankit alias Montu, S/o Narendra Singh and Nitin alias Ganja, S/o Rajendra alias Jhodha and Kuldeep alias Tori, S/o Omveer Singh, all residents of village -Wajidpur, Sonu, R/o Teekri, P.S. -Doghat and Mohit, R/o Bijraul armed with lethal weapons forcibly entered into the house of Smt. Sarla Devi and started firing indiscriminately with their firearms at her husband Satyapal Singh causing his immediate death. Before the occupants of the house could realize what was happening, the petitioner and his companions brandishing their weapons dragged the dead body of Satyapal Singh in the east of the deceased's house. Upon Sarla Devi and others raising cries for help and chasing the assailants, they left the dead body of the deceased and ran away in different directions. On the basis of the first information report lodged by Smt. Sarla Devi at P.S. -Kotwali Baraut on 31.1.2014, Case Crime No. 72 of 2014, under Sections -147, 148, 149, 452, 302 and 120B I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and seven other persons. The motive of the murder was attributed to an old enmity between Narendra Singh father of Ankit alias Montu and the deceased emanating from a dispute which had arisen several years ago between them over money lending in which the deceased Satyapal Singh had thrashed Narendra Singh. During the investigation of the aforesaid case the statement of informant Smt. Sarla Devi was recorded in which she fully supported the prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R. The news regarding the aforesaid incident was published in daily newspapers namely Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran. The other eyewitnesses of the incident namely Ravindra, Dharmendra, Jitendra, Jay Prakash, Yogendra and Upendra also fully supported the prosecution case in their statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. According to the post mortem report of the deceased he had died as a result of firearm injuries sustained by him in the incident. The petitioner was arrested on 20.3.2014 during random checking of vehicles at Sarai Road railway crossing and on his pointing out, one country made revolver of twelve bore was allegedly recovered. The petitioner during his interrogation had confessed having fired at the deceased along with the other co -accused. He was however not sure whether the shot fired by him had hit the deceased or not. While the petitioner was confined in district Jail Meerut on account of his being accused in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 72 of 2014 he was served with the impugned detention order dated 30.4.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat in exercise of his power under Section 3(2) of National Security Act along with the grounds of detention under Section 8 of the National Security Act.
(3.) A perusal of the impugned order as well as the ground of detention reflects that the detention order was passed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner on the basis of his involvement in two criminal cases namely, Case Crime No. 72 of 2014, under Sections -147, 148, 149, 452, 302 and 120B I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 347 of 2015, under Section -506 I.P.C. both registered at P.S. -Kotwali. As far as the incident dated 31.1.2014 was concerned, the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Baghpat was of the view that the daring and diabolic manner in which the petitioner along with the other co -accused, had committed the murder of Satya Pal Singh by lethal weapons with common intention in broad -day -light and thereafter dragged his dead body upto the lane of the village brandishing their weapons, had caused a stampede in the village. People had run away leaving their shops and articles due to fear and hid themselves in their houses. Feeling of fear, insecurity and terror had engulfed the residents of Wajidpur and other nearby areas. An atmosphere of fear and terror pervaded and after sometime angry people came out on the road and blocked Baraut -Binauli -Meerut road totally disrupting the movement of traffic. Public peace and public order was totally shattered in the nearby areas also. The grounds of detention further reflect that despite being in judicial custody the petitioner was putting pressure upon Smt. Sarla Devi through his brother to withdraw the case filed by her against the petitioner or to face dire consequences which had created a feeling of fear, terror and insecurity amongst the informant and the other eyewitnesses of the incident and on the basis of the first information report lodged by Smt. Sarla Devi regarding threats extended to her by the petitioner through his brother Ashwini, Case Crime No. 347 of 2015, under Section 506 I.P.C. was also registered against the petitioner. The Local Intelligence Unit (L.I.U.) had vide report dated 25.4.2014 had reported that on account of the aforesaid incident, the atmosphere of anger and fear had engulfed the nearby villages which had affected the normal life of the residents of village -Wajidpur and other nearby villages. All kinds of rumours were floating in the area on account of which there was possibility of public tranquillity being adversely affected and in case the petitioner succeeded in obtaining bail, the same would adversely affect public order. The petitioner preferred representations before the detaining authority (District Magistrate), State Government, U.P. Advisory Board constituted under the National Security Act and Central Government through Superintendent of District Jail, Meerut. The representations made by the petitioner against the order of detention to the State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Baghpat, U.P. Advisory Board, U.P., Lucknow and the Central Government were rejected.;