Amar Saran, J. - (1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed for setting aside an order of detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as NSA) dated 04.02.2009 and the consequent detention of the petitioner. The grounds of detention dated 04.02.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad mentioned that the petitioner and his companions tried to disturb communal harmony in the District. With this object they distributed pamphlets to the Hindus "to rise" and "to go to Panda Bagh temple," which caused fear and hurt the the communal sentiments of people belonging to other faiths. Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, in-charge Kotwali Farrukhabad reached the spot with a police force to enquire whether communal harmony was being disturbed by the actions of the petitioner and his companions. A case was registered under Section 295A Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and his companions.
(2.) On 18.01.2009 at 10 a.m. Sub-Inspector Vijay Kumar Mishra reached the Panda Bagh temple situated at railway road Farrukhabad with police force. He found the petitioner along with his companions numbering between 400-500 raising slogans with the objective of disturbing communal harmony. They were told that Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code had been promulgated in the District and that no attempt should be made for taking out any rally. Even then the petitioner and his companions proceeded to make serious allegations and attempted to take out a rally without the permission of the administration. Looking to the seriousness of the situation the C.O. Farrukhabad, A.D.M. Sadar and other officials reached the spot with police force and told the processionists not to proceed, but the latter paid no heed to their requests. The petitioner fired with his revolver at the police party, which missed, however his companions then attacked the police party with lathi, dandas and stones because of which police driver Ram Veer Singh, Sub-Inspector Sri Surendra Singh Bhadoria, Constables Dharmendra Singh and Udai Pal Singh, Home Guard Shishupal Singh and Pheru Singh received injuries. The motorcycle of SI Surendra Singh Bhadoria was set on fire. When the police tried to control the mob, the petitioner and his companions became more aggressive. They entered into the Kotwali, Farrukhabad police station and destroyed furniture and broke glasses and other items. As a result the Tata Spacio vehicle of the A.D.M. and the vehicles of other police officers were damaged. The petitioner and his companions entered Police Chowki Palra, P.S. Kotwali Farrukhabad and locked up the police personnel in a room and set fire to their items of daily consumption kept there. 18 companions of the petitioner were arrested by the police force at 2.00 p.m. but the petitioner himself escaped along with his revolver from the place of occurrence. As a result of these activities there was grave disturbance in Farrukhabad town. The shops were closed and fear, terror and insecurity was created amongst the general public. People entered their houses and the transport of the city came to a standstill. Persons belonging to one community especially became insecure and communal tension was generated in the city and public order was totally disturbed. This matter was covered by different newspapers. As the petitioners bail had been rejected by the Magistrate and the D.M. was hopeful that the bail would be granted by the Sessions Court and there was apprehension that the petitioner would again create an atmosphere of fear and terror, hence, it was thought necessary to preventively detained the petitioner under the preventive law.
(3.) In view of the gravity of the allegations, the petitioner's counsel Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate has confined himself to one submission, that the representation of the petitioner dated 14.02.2009 which was submitted to various parties including the Central Government through the Jailer was considered with inordinate delay by the Central Government. It was pointed out that the District Magistrate forwarded the petitioner's representation with his comments on 16.02.2009 to the State Government after calling for comments from the S.P. Farrukhabad. It was received by the State Government on 18.02.2009 and even rejectedon 20.02.2009. This showed the utter promptitude in disposing of the representation of the petitioner by the State Government. But the treatment accorded to the petitioner's representation by the Central Government tells another story. The State Government forwarded the representation to the Central Government by speed post on 18.02.2009. The District Magistrate also forwarded a copy of the representation to the Central Government on 16.02.2009 by speed post.;