- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. Ram Autar alias Om Prakash filed this Habeas Corpus peti tion for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the repondents to release the petitioner forthwith and to set the petitioner at liberty. A writ of certiorari is also prayed for quashing the impugned detention order dated 30-1-96 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) THE petitioner was confined to the District Jail, Kanpur Nagar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, IPC. , 7, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3 (2) (5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On 6-12-95 when the petitioner was in District Jail, Kanpur Nagar, the impugned order dated 6-12-95 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure-1) along with the grounds of detention was served to him through the Jail Authorities on 7-12-95. THE petitioner submitted his representation on 18-12-95 through the Jail Authorities which was received by the State Government on 20-12-95. THE District Magistrate sent his comments on the representation of the petitioner on 5-1-96 which was received by the State Government on 6-1-96. Reference was made to the Advisory Board and the petitioner was heard on 15-1-96. THE order of detention was confirmed by the State Government on 15-1-96 itself. The petitioner in the writ petition stated that he is a peace loving and law abiding citizen, employed in the Ordinance Equipment Factory, Phoolbag, Kanpur. His service record had been clean. He pleaded that on 15-11-95, he left his home at 6 a. m. to join his duties at 7. 30 a. m. at the factory and actually reported on his duty at 7. 30 a. m. One the said date, he was on duty between 7,30 a. m. to 4. 45 p. m. on 15-11-95 at the Factory. On Mandi had lodged an FIR at 9. 20 a. m. on 15-11 -95 that at 7. 15 a. m. on 15-11-95, the petitioner and others committed murder of one Rajesh. It was stated in the FIR that the petitioner fired in the air and that he caught hold of hands of the deceased. On the FIR, it was nowhere al leged that the petitioner caused fire arm injury. It is also nowhere wishpered in the report that the shot fired by the petitioner hit Babui deceased. According to the prosecution case in the FIR, the deceased did not receive any fire arm injury on his person. No injury was caused by the petitioner by fire arm. The petitioner has been implicated in the said case on acount of the enmity between the family of the petitioner "and the informant of the said FIR. The mention of Section 3 (2) of S. C. /s. T. (P. A) Act against the petitioner and his family members was added only on account of the enmity and to add colour to the case. It is submitted that if the allegation of the prosecution is seen, it would appear that the petitioner, his wife and son came to the house of the informant and insulted him by abusing him calling him "acchut CHAMAR" and gave threat to set Chapar on fire. The petitioner was implicated false ly in the case on account of personal enmity and the facts and circumstances do not show that the allegation in any manner has any connection with the law and order or public order. The incident was confined to two private individuals and amounted to infr ingement of law and did not make out any case of public order nor furnished any ground or the basis, so as to attract the passing of the order of detention under Na tional Security Act. The petitioner on com ing to know about the false criminal case filed Crime No. 222 of 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, IPC, 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3 (2) (5) of S. C. /s. T. (P. A.) Act, surrendered before the court of Chief Matroplitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on 29-11-95. He was sent to jail, his bail application was rejected by the learned C. J. M. on 29-11-95.
(3.) THE petitioner was in jail when the copy of the detention order was served on 6-12-95. The petitioner's representation dated 18-12-95 which was received by the State Government on 20- 12-95 was placed before the Advisory Board for the first time on 17-1-96 on which date the petitioner was called to appear before the Advisory Board.;