N.L.GANGULY, J. - (1.) Ram Autar alias Om Prakash filed this Habeas Corpus Petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents 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 dt. 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, I.P.C.7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sec. 3(2) (5) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On 6-12-95 when the petitioner was in District Jail, Kanpur Nagar, the impugned order dt. 6-12-95 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure 1) alongwith 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 Govt. on 15-1-96 itself.
(3.) The petitioner in the writ petition stated that he is a peace loving and law abiding citizen, employed in the ordinance Equipment Factory, Phoolbad, 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. on 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 Mangli had lodged an FIR at 9.20 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. In the FIR, it was however alleged that the petitioner caused fire arm injury. It is also nowhere whispered in the report that the shot fired by the petitioner hit Babmi 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 account of the enmity between the family of the petitioner and the informant of the said FIR.The mention of Sec. 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.;