R.K.Rastogi, J. - (1.) THIS Habeas Cor pus Petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 4.6.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Agra against him under section 3(2) of the Na tional Security Act and for his release from detention.
(2.) IT has been alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a peace loving and law abiding citizen and he has not been con victed in any case so far. On 23.3.2008 at about 8.55 P.M. a F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Sundar Singh Chauhan against him and other co-accused named Babloo, Satish Chaudhary, Rajendra Yadav and Hariya Chaudhary under sections 147,148,149 and 302 I.P.C. at police station Chhatta District Agra and on the basis of that report case crime No. 30/08 was registered against him. On the basis of this report, the District Mag istrate, Agra, the respondent No. 2, passed an order against him for his detention under section 3(2) of the National Security Act on 4.6.2008. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this order on several grounds in the present Habeas Corpus petition. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the petitioner has filed re joinder affidavit also in reply to those counter affidavits. We have heard the learned Coun sel for both the parties and have gone through the record.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner first of all submitted before us that the District Magistrate, Agra, respondent No. 2 did not apply his mind before passing the impugned order and he simply signed the detention order in a mechanical manner. He further submitted that a perusal of the grounds of detention contained in the order dated 4.6.2008 (Annexure-2) shows that these grounds are in verbatim reproduction of the report of the Inspector of Police Sta tion Chhatta dated 7.5.2008 (Annexure-6). In support of this contention he cited before us a Division Bench Ruling of this Court in Tunnu v. Superintendent, Dis trict Jail, Ballia and others, 2000 (1) A.Cr.R. 611. In this case also in the grounds of detention, there was al most verbatim reproduction of the report submitted by sponsoring authority with this charge only that the name of the peti tioner in the report was substituted by word 'Aap' in the grounds of the detention order. The Court, relying upon a ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Singh v. State of JandK, (1985)1 SCC 561 held that apparently the detention order had been passed in mechanical man ner, casually and without application of mind and so it stood vitiated. He also cited before us another ruling of Hon'ble Su preme Court in Rajesh Vashdev Adnani v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 61. This was a case in which the detention order was passed under section 3(1)(i) and (iii), COFE-POSA and the detention order was verbatim reproduction of the proposal of the sponsoring authority except use of the word 'Aap' in the order for the word 'he' in the proposal. It was held that such a deten tion order suffers from non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority at the time of actual preparation of the de tention order and grounds thereof, and so it was not sustainable.;