- (1.) This Habeas Corpus petition is directed against the 'order of preventive detention dated 28.2.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad in exercise of the powers under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). The grounds of detention have been enclosed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner apart from praying for quashing of the above detention order has prayed that he may be set at liberty forthwith as his continued detention is illegal. The petitioner was arrested by Police on 3.12.2005 in connection with the case crime No. 358 of 2005 under Section 302, IPC on account of an incident dated 24.12.2005 in which the petitioner alongwith his brother Manoj Kumar Singh, Sarvesh Kumar Singh and Driver Chandan Pandey went to the house of one Dilip Kumar Agrahari and shot dead Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, a candidate for the post of Secretary of the Student Union of the Allahabad University who was present in the said house from before.
(2.) The grounds of detention in unequivocal terms states that on account of above incident of shooting the student Union leader Kamlesh Kumar Yadav by putting a country made pistol on his right temple and the subsequent act of indiscriminate firing in a densely populated residential area created terror and panic disturbing the public order. The residents of the locality in terror immediately closed down their shops and shut themselves inside their houses. The Police and Rapid Action Force had to be deployed in good number. Extra force had to called for from the adjoining districts to restore public order and normalcy in the town. The grounds of detention further records that the petitioner had applied for bail before the District Judge but the bail application was rejected on 10.2.2006.The petitioner moved another bail application on 14.2.2006 before the Sessions Judge. Accordingly, he is making serious efforts for his release on bail and there is all possibility of the petitioner being granted bail. The petitioner on being released is likely to indulge in same kind of activity and to perform similar acts which would disturb the public order. Therefore, under the circumstances it has become necessary to put the petitioner in preventive detention.
(3.) The necessary counter and rejoinder affidavits between the parties have been exchanged and the Counsel for the respective parties have no objection for-the final disposal of the petition.;