VINEET SARAN, J. - (1.) THE main question for determination In this habeas corpus writ petition which is directed against the detention order dated 29.3.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Bijnor is whether a solitary incident can amount to disturbance of public order or not. FACTS:
(2.) THE grounds of detention as mentioned in the impugned order dated 29.3.2007 are to the effect that on 4.3.2007 an incident had taken place in which the petitioner and his associates had molested the daughter of Jamir Ahmad, whereafter in the evening the father and brothers of the girl reached the shop of the petitioner to complain of the same to Habib, father of the petitioner. The said Habib as well as the petitioner and his relatives misbehaved with Jamir Ahmad and his sons and threatened them of dire consequences and asked them to return back. Thereafter they got excited and the petitioner took out a knife and his accomplice Saleem took out a sword and started attacking Jamir Ahmad and his sons. The petitioner Islamuddin attacked Jamir Ahmad on his chest with a knife and his accomplice Saleem attacked said Jamir Ahmad in his stomach with a sword. There were a large number of villagers on the spot but because of their terror, no one could dare to oppose the petitioner and his associates, who thereafter left the spot displaying their blood stained weapons and threatening the villagers. After they had left the place, the sons of Jamir Ahmad and other villagers came forward to help Jamir Ahmad, who was in the last stage of his life. He was then taken to Bijnor and was declared dead in the hospital. A case was initially registered under sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC which was later on converted to section 302 IPC. In the detention order it has also been stated that said Jamir Ahmad was attacked by the petitioner openly in the crowded market of the village at about 7.30 p.m. and because of the terror of the petitioner and his associates, no one was even ready to give information or evidence against them. It has further been mentioned that the petitioner was arrested on 11.3.2007 and the knife as well as the sword which were used in the offence had been recovered; that the police reported that the villagers had terrorised thereby affecting the normal life in the area; that the said incident was reported in the local newspaper Amar Ujala because of which also the residents of the area were terrorised of the petitioner and his associates; and that after having been arrested, the petitioner was sending threats to the local residents that after he was released on bail he would take action against those who oppose him and that because of the incident there was disturbance in the area due to which additional police force had to be sent to the village.
(3.) WE have heard Mrs. Swati Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioner who has rendered full assistance to this Court and has placed the case in a succinct manner which is worthy of appreciation. We have also heard Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned AGA and have perused the record.;