- (1.) MUKTESHWAR Prasad, J. The petitioner is under preventive detention vide order of the District Magistrate, Varanasi dated 24-5- 2006. He has filed this Habeas Corpus petition for quashing the impugned detention order dated 24-5- 2006 (Annexure-4 to the petition) and for setting him at liberty.
(2.) THE grounds of detention have been disclosed in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner is an accused in Case Crime No. 42 of 2006 under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Penal Code, Police Station Jaitpura District Varanasi. The petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case was apprehended on 10-4-2006 at about 4. 20 a. m. alongwith his two associates Nishar and Istikhar. One of the associates succeeded in running away. The Police recovered fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100 each amounting to Rs. 20,000. In other words, two Gaddies of Rs. 10,000 each were recovered. On inspection, it was found by the Police that the currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100 had four numbers only and picture of Mahatma Gandhi was not legible. The Police recovered Rs. 10,000/- from Nishar and Istikhar each. The petitioner and his associates were found involved in the offence of circulating fake currency notes in the market with a view to disturb and affect the economy of the country. It is said that the petitioner and his associates were operating as an organized gang, which was involved in the circulation of fake currency notes in a planned manner. S. O. Sri Gorakhnath Police Station Jaitpura after the arrest of accused prepared a seizure memo and sealed the recovered currency notes on the spot. The petitioner and his associates were brought to the Police Station and a case was registered on the same day at 5. 10 a. m. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and others on 11-5-2006. On the report of the sponsoring authority S. S. P. , Varanasi and his subordinates the District Magistrate, Varanasi was satisfied that there was every possibility that the petitioner would be enlarged on bail in the case and he would again indulge in the similar activities which would be prejudicial for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, passed the order of detention against him in exercise of his powers under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(3.) THE impugned order of detention passed by respondent No. 2 was served on the petitioner on the same day in District Jail and grounds of detention and order of detention were read over to him. He was also informed about his right to make representation to the authorities including the District Magistrate. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of all the respondents including Union of India and are on record. A rejoinder affidavit was also filed on behalf of the petitioner.;