J.J.MUNIR,J. - (1.) This is a petition framed as one for a writ of Habeas Corpus seeking to challenge the continued detention of the petitioner Sanju Yadav Alias Sanjay under an order dated 05.02.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah ( for short the "Detaining Authority") in exercise of his power under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The order dated 05.02.2017 shall hereinafter be referred to as the "detention order". Though the petition is one for a writ of Habeas Corpus the petitioner has sought the following material relief alone: "(i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 05.02.2017 passed by the respondent no.4, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 as well as order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the respondent no. 1 under Section 3(3) of the The National Security Act (Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this writ petition.)" To our mind the relief claimed which is one for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari with no relief claimed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus is absolutely misplaced and does not accord with the frame of the writ petition that is entirely in substance one for a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus.
(2.) We have said much about this issue in our judgment rendered in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 6366 of 2017, Pankaj Singh vs. State of U.P . and three others, decided on 02.11.2017 and would, therefore, not dwell in detail over it here. Nevertheless, we are constrained to say that we are not in isolation over the issue of appropriate frame of a Habeas Corpus writ petition vis-a-vis the relief required to be sought. A Division Bench of this Court in Salam Waris @ Gatte vs. State of U.P. and others , 2009 (5) ADJ 464 has disapproved in the strongest terms, the ill-framing of a Habeas Corpus writ petition by asking for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the detention order. In that case their Lordships refused to proceed with the petition on merits compelling the petitioner to appropriately amend relief. We do not intend to do so. We think that in a Habeas Corpus writ petition where the issue of liberty is involved, rules of procedure should not detain us in determining the claim that is one based on violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution by the letter of it, let alone the spirit. We have the approval of their Lordships of the Supreme Court to the course of action we have chosen to take expressed in re: Cherukuri Mani vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others , (2015) 13 SCC 722 where confronted with the same issue of ill-framing a Habeas Corpus petition as to the relief sought, their Lordships held: "6. When the appellant challenged the detention of her husband before the High Court in a habeas corpus writ petition, the High Court dismissed the same with a cryptic order. In our considered view, when habeas corpus writ petition is filed, even though the petitioner has not properly framed the petition and not sought appropriate relief, it is expected from the court to at least go into the issue and decide on merits. Normally, in such matters where liberty of a person is at stake, the courts would take a liberal approach in the procedural aspects. But unfortunately in the instant case, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition at the threshold itself." Accordingly, we proceed to determine this petition as one for a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus ignoring the technicality of the law as to form of the relief sought.
(3.) The basis for the detention order is an incident that led the Station House Officer, P.S. Bharthana, District Etawah to lodge a first information report on 26.01.2017 at 18:45 hours giving rise to Case Crime No. 80 of 2017, under Sections 147 , 148 , 323 , 307 , 504 , 506 , 332 , 353 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. It was reported by the Station House Officer, Bharthana, Etawah that the informant was participating in the republic day parade in the police lines on 26.01.2017 when he received information from the control room that a road accident has taken place involving a Wagon-R (car) and a motorcycle over the Baherpura Canal Bridge, in consequence of which the riders of the motorcycle have fallen into the canal and died as a result of drowning. It is further said in the first information that on receipt of the information after intimating higher officials of the incident he gave requisite instructions to his subordinate at P.S. Bharthana who vide G.D. Entry No. 17 dated 26.01.2017 timed at 9.40 a.m. left with full particulars of the personnel entered and in good strength for the place of incident in the official jeep. At the same time the informant himself left the Etawah police lines promptly.;