- (1.) THROUGH the present application under Article 226 of the Con­stitution of India the petitioner has chal­lenged his order of detention dated 2-6-1997 recorded by the District Magistrate, Falehgarh, Farrukhabad, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. A prayer has been made for quashing the detention order and for setting the petitioner at liberty forthwith. The State of U.P. through Home Secretary, Lucknow, the District Magistrate, Fatehgarh, Farruk­habad, Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh (Farrukhabad) and Jail Super­intendent, District Jail, Lucknow, were noticed as respondents and counter-af­fidavits were filed by the respondents.
(2.) THE detention order was annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. It was stated therein that the District Magistrate, Fatehgarh, was satisfied that detention of the petitioner was necessary to prevent him from committing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Accordingly, the detention order was recorded on 2-6-1997 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act directing his detention in Lucknow Jail. The detention order was appended with the grounds as required under the law. In the grounds it was stated that by an order dated 2-6-1997 the petitioner had been detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act and the grounds were being communicated to him as re­quired under Section 8 of the Act. The grounds were as follows: (i) On 9-7-1994 one Pramod Kumar Pan-dey had lodged a report at Kotwali Farrukhabad against the petitioner and his associates slating therein that they had raised his medical store being armed with tamancha and had killed Vinod Kumar Pandey brother of Pramod Kumar Pandey and took away the licensed gun of Pramod Kumar Pandey. Upon this F.I.R. Case Crime No. 595 of 1994 was started and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was under trial. This incident took place in open day light in the town of Farruk­habad and had created a panic in the locality. The shopkeepers pulled down their shutters and people started running away and closed their doors. The incident had prejudicially affected public order. (ii) It was further stated that Sri Sudhansu Dutt Diwedi lodged an F.I.R. at Kotwali, Far­rukhabad, intimating therein that on 9-2-1997 Sri Brahm Dutt Diwedi, a legislator from the Bhartiya Janta Party and a former Minister of U.P., had gone to the house of one Hitesh Chandra Agarwal on the occasion of tilak. His bodyguard Sri Brij Kishore was with him. After the tilak when Brahm Dutt Diwedi was coming back to his car, the present petitioner holding a revolver and accompanied by three unknown associates also armed with fire arms reached near the car of Brahm Dutt Diwedi, surrounded the car and all of them showered bullets on Sri Diwedi causing grievous injuries, Brahm Dutt Diwedi, his bodyguard Brij Kishore and the driver Sri Sher Singh were injured. The aforesaid Brahm Dutt Diwedi and Brij Kishore died in a Nursing Home almost immediately thereafter. The incident was seen by all of the people assembled at the time of the tilak and the incident had created a panic in the locality and had affected public order prejudicially.
(3.) IT was stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied on the basis of these two incidents that the criminal ac­tivities of the petitioner had created and atmosphere of terror in the locality and people were scared at the sight of the petitioner and there was possibility of repetition of similar criminal acts at the instance of the petitioner. It was, there­fore, necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Dis­trict Magistrate indicated that the petitioner was in custody in Case Crime No. 109 of 1997 (relating to murder of Brahm Dutt Diwedi) and charge-sheet was not expected within 90 days and it was likely that on technical grounds he would get bail and once on bail the petitioner would again engage himself in similar ac­tivities. He was given the opportunity of making a representation as also to pray for a personal hearing before the Advisory Board.;