- (1.) J. S. Sidhu, J. These nine habeas corpus petitions have been filed against identical orders of detonation dated 17-7- 1995 on the same material passed against them (Aunexure 1 to every writ petition) by District Magistrate, Moradabad under the National Security Act, 1980. This will dispose of all these nine petitions.
(2.) FACTS essential for the disposal of the Habeas Corpus petitions are that a case was registered against the petitioners and others under Sec tions 147, 452, 336, 323, 427, 504 and 506 IPC in Police Station Civil Lines Moradabad on 6-7-1995 at 11 a. m. (copy of the FIR is annexure 2 in the first six and annexure 3 in the rest of the petitions) arising out of an occurrence at 8. 05 a. m. that day the occurrence in sum and substance being that when a police party from Police Station, Civil Lines, Moradabad reached the spot in mohalla Chakkar of Moradabad town they found two rival groups, each ten or so strong, indulging in exchange of brickbats, in bandying of abuses besides hurling threats to the lives of each other and the law and order to have been thereby shattered and arrested the peti tioners named in the FIR then and there whereas the rest of the miscreants, two of whom are named in the FIR and the rest unnamed, made good their escape. On 7-7-1995 the District Magistrate was in receipt of a report from the sponsoring authority (police) and thereafter (the District Magistrate) passed detention orders against the petitioners on 9-7-1995 under the National Security Act, 1980. This order was, however, revoked by him later on 17-7 1995 and the instant detention orders ageist the petitioner. ; passed the same day on the same material as before. The petitioners were served with these detention orders on 24-7-1995, there representations against the orders were forwarded to the State Government by the District Magistrate on 6-8-1995, these were rejected on 9. 8. 1995 the rejection having been received in the office of the District Magistrate on 12-8-1995. All the petitioners appeared before the Advisory Board on 25-8-1995 and the State Government confirmed the detention orders on 6-9-1995. These detention orders have been challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions on sundary grounds. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned State counsel and Sri S. C. Misra learned counsel for the Union of India. These petitions need not, if we may use the expression, detain us long. It is well settle ed that to be valid detention orders like the present detention orders against the petitioners who were in custody in the aforesaid criminal case after arrests on 6-7-1995 must contain four essential ingredients which are (i) that the authority passing the order must be aware that they (peti tioners) were in custody, (ii) that he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed against them that there is real possibility of their being released, fin) that on being so released they would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity (that is, activity detrimental to the public peace) and (iv) that it is essential to detain them to prevent them from so doing. Now coming to the cases in hand, the basis for passing the deten tion orders against the petitioners by the District Magistrate was the registration of the aforementioned case under Section 147, 452, 336,323, 327, 504 and 506 IPC, Case Crime No. 739 of 1995 (copy of FIR as noticed being annexure 2 in the first six and 3 in the rest of the petitions) and report from the sponsoring authority (that is the concerned local police official.) Now the said criminal case was a case of an ordinary crime committed by two rival groups to be dealt with under ordinary law. Though the peti tioners were in custody in the said criminal case crime No. 739 of 1995 when the detention orders dated 17-7-1995 were passed this fact does not find mention therein. Furthermore there is no mention in the detention orders that there was a real possibility of the petitioners being released in the case. Though this is to be found in the report of the sponsoring authority, this material was not supplied to the petitioners (detenus) and the State, respondent in the petitions, therefore cannot benefit from this report because of non-supply of the material to the petitioners rendering the detention orders insupportable. Because, as noticed, there is no mention in the detention orders that the petitioners were in custody and also there is no mention there that there was a real possibility of their being released. This shows non-application of mind by the detaining authority and two out of the four essential Ingredients which must be fulfilled before the detention orders like the present can be upheld are missing. That being so, the detention orders under challenge in the petitions are unsustainable. In this view of the matter all the nine petitions succeed and are allowed and the detention orders dated 17-7-1995 passed respectively against the petitioners (annexure 1 in each writ petition) are as a result hereby quashed. The petitioners (detenus) be released forthwith if not wanted in other case or cases. Costs to be borne by the parties. Petition c I lowed. .;