- (1.)Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Om Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Union of India and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA for respondent no. 2 to 5.
(2.)By means of this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, the petitioner Surjeet alias Bhola has made a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus quashing the detention order dated 03.12016 (Annexure No.1) passed by respondent no.3, District Magistrate, Auraiya in exercise of his power u/s 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and to set the petitioner Surjeet alias Bhola at liberty.
(3.)From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties as well as the ground of detention supplied to the petitioner along with the detention order, it transpires that Case Crime No. 407 of 2016 under Sections 379, 285, 427, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Sec. 15 (2) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 and Sec. 3/4 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, was registered at P.S.- Dibiyapur, District-Auraiya against petitioner and other co-accused. The F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Ankit Sati, Operation Officer, H.P.C.L. In the F.I.R., it was alleged that the petitioner along with his companions Rajendra, Jitendra Yadav, Shaloo Thakur, Sonu Sharma, Pintoo Singh, Amit Botham, Gaurav alias Billu Yadav, Avadh Bihari, Gudda, Dalveer and driver of the tanker whose name was not known, had damaged R.K.P.L. (Revadi-Kanpur) diesel supply pipeline of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at point 367.2 km in post-Harchandpur of village-Ramgarh by drilling a hole in it with the aid of tools and equipments and stolen diesel. Their act had also resulted in wastage of huge quantity of diesel which had spilled all over the road. The petitioner was arrested on account of his being accused in the aforesaid case and sent to jail. Respondent no.3 on finding the aforesaid activity of the petitioner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community passed the impugned detention order which was served upon the petitioner while he was in District Jail-Auraiya on account of his being accused in Case Crime No. 407 of 2016. The grounds of detention further reveal that while the petitioner was in jail in connection with Case Crime No. 407 of 2016, he was booked in Case Crime No. 474 of 2016 u/s 2/3 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.