S.K.PHAUJDAR, J. - (1.) Through this writ petition the petitioner has challenged an order of the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act dated 1-8-1997, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order was followed by the grounds of detention as well and it was stated in the said grounds that on 13-5-97 one Arvind was allegedly murdered by certain assailants belonging to the Muslim community. It is alleged that the petitioner and others gave the incident a communal colour and with a view to avenge the murder of Arvind they had stopped a bus of U. P. Road-ways, punctured its tyres with knife, threatened the passengers with katta and set fire to the bus. The passengers ran here and there in a panic and in the fire not only the bus but important documents concerning the journey were burnt to ashes as also the belongings of the passengers. A substantive case was initiated against unknown persons but the name of the petitioner and others came up during investigation. The incident happened at the centre of the city and had affected movement of traffic and a reign of terror and panic engulfed the area. Passengers could not reach their destination. The people of the neighbouring localities also stopped coming out and public order was seriously affected. This incident was followed by further attacks in the houses of persons of the Muslim community and several other cases were also lodged against unknown culprits and during investigation of those cases also the involvement of the present petitioner allegedly came to light. Such incidents occurred not only on 13-5-1997 but also on the next day and public order in the locality was badly shattered. The markets were closed, roads were blocked and properties were damaged. Subsequently, a case under the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as the Gangsters Act) was also initiated against the petitioner and he was taken into custody after his surrender on 28-6-1997.
(2.) The grounds further indicated that on the date of the order the petitioner was in custody and he was trying for his release on bail in all the cases lodged against him and there was possibility of his being so released and there was further possibility of his acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. After being served with the notice and the grounds and being intimated that he had a right of representation, the petitioner made a prayer before the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, for supply of certain information to him. In his application the petitioner had stated that the date of examination of certain witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. be given in case Crime No. 397A/1997 under Section 435, I.P.C. He further wanted to know the dates of examination of some other witnesses in case Crime Nos. 397B of 1997, 397E of 1997, 397G of 1997 and 400 of 1997. There was a further prayer that he might be informed as to who was the witness on whose statement he was involved in case Crime No. 397C of 1997, for whose statement case Crime No. 397E of 1997 was investigated into for an offence under Section 395, I.P.C., who was the person involving him in case Crime No. 397F of 1997. It may be indicated at this point itself that the petitioner was given the copies of statements of witnesses in all these cases and his grievance so far as the statements of the witnesses was concerned, was not tenable. However the dates of examination of the witnesses were not given to him, rather the report of the Station House Officer, as per Annexure 12 to the writ petition, indicated that the accused or the detenu had no right to know the dates of examination of the witnesses. A representation was actually preferred as per Annexure 13 to the writ petition and the representation was rejected, the report of the Advisory Board was received and the order of detention was confirmed on 27/09/1997, directing his detention for a period of 12 months from 31-7-1997.
(3.) The present writ petition was pressed on the ground that the petitioner had no criminal history and there was no material to infer that he was likely to commit an offence similar to the past ones in future. It was further contended that he had not moved for bail in all the cases for which he was detained and there was no ground for the District Magistrate to infer that he was trying to be released on bail. It was contended by the learned counsel that failure to supply the information sought for had vitiated the detention or the continued detention of the petitioner and the learned counsel concluded, upon the materials that were placed on record, that the District Magistrate had not applied his mind and had noted mechanically on the reports of the sponsoring officers.;