- (1.) K. K. Misra, J. The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 31-8-05 passed against him by the District Magistrate, Bijnor-respondent No. 2 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act 1980 and his continued detention thereunder.
(2.) THE grounds of detention given in support of the detention order are contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is stated therein that the petitioner is a hardened criminal of P. S. Dhampur and due to his having committed murder of a girl aged about 10 years in a planned way, there was atmosphere of fear and terror and the maintenance of public order had been adversely affected. It is further stated that due to his terror, no-body could dare to give information to the police or to give evidence against him. Describing his criminal activities, it is stated that on 25-7-05 at about 6 p. m. the petitioner alongwith his companions tried to misbehave with a girl aged about 10 years and subsequently killed her dragging her in a sugar cane field. On the same day, naked dead-body of the girl was found in the sugarcane field. Due to this incident, the people became terrorized and fear stricken. Communal tension prevailed in the area and due to this incident, the communal harmony was disturbed. In these circumstances, the District Magistrate, Bijnor thought it fit to pass the impugned detention order. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard Sri V. M. Zaidi, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Tripathi, A. G. A. for the State and Sri N. I. Jafri, Counsel for the Union of India.
(3.) THE first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the main Incident made basis for passing the impugned order related to question of law and order and it cannot be termed as question of public order. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied upon the case of Rajendra Singh v. Adhikshak, Janpad Karagar, Janpad Ghaziabad, 2006 (54) ACC 105. On the other hand, Sri Arvind Tripathi, Learned A. G. A. argued that the girl which was misbehaved belonged to minority community and this incident flared in communal disharmony and the District Magistrate, Bijnor rightly passed the detention order against the petitioner. The incident which has been made basis for passing the impugned order was heinous in nature. An innocent girl aged about 10 years was grazing goats. The petitioner and his companions attempted to molest her modesty and foreseeing the consequences killed her brutally. The girl belonged to minority community and the recovery of her dead-body in a sugarcane field spread like a wild fire and the communal harmony was hurt. It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was member of an organized gang involved in several anti-social and criminal activities. No one dares even to lodge report or give evidence against the petitioner. Due to the incident, the public order in the area was disturbed and atmosphere of fear and terror prevailed and general public became terrorized. Therefore, the impugned detention order was passed to maintain public order. When activity of a person endangered public peace or tranquility or his activity was directed towards general members of the public and its impact was so much in the locality that those living there were prevented from following their normal avocation of life, then it would give rise to public order. The manner of committing the offence and the place where it was committed are the determining factors for deciding the question whether the incident gave rise to breach of public order or whether it was merely law and order problem. In these circumstances, we find that the incident related to question of public order and not law and order and the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is of no help.;