Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J. - (1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order dated 24.3.2009 whereby the petitioner has been detained for his involvement in the criminal activities and citing him as a recidivist having to his discredit criminal history, the order of detention was passed. The relief sought in this petition is excerpted below. "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus to produce the corpus namely, Shahrukh before this Hon'ble Court and direct the respondents to set at liberty the corpus/petitioner by quashing the impugned detention order dated 26.3.2009, 2.4.2009 and 30.4.2009/1.5.2009 passed by respondents (Annexure Nos. 5, and 11 to the writ petition)."
(2.) Recapitulating the events leading to passing of impugned detention order, it is enumerated in the order that since both the petitioner and Mashkoor Alam were embroiled in litigation, on 10.2.2009, when Mashkoor Alam and his brother Masood, and Iqbal, Mansab, Mohd. Hanif Abid, Arif and Khursheed had left the village for Bulandshahr and as soon as they reached near Mangal Chowk Gulaoti at about 9.30 am, the petitioner and his accomplices who lay in wait there, started firing indiscriminately at the party and as a result, three of the persons namely Masood, Arif and Iqbal were seriously wounded on account of sustaining bullet injuries and slumped on the ground. It is stated in the order of detention that daredevil act of firing with intention to kill was executed by the petitioner and his accomplices in broad day light and further that the petitioner and his brother threatened the people who dared to come forward as a witness and fired in the air to intimidate them as a result of which chaotic situation was created and the people fled away without having feast. On account of daredevil act, the people were terror stricken and they ran helter and skelter and tempo of normal life was disturbed. In order to restore normalcy police reinforcement was rushed and situation was brought to control with great difficulty. It is further stated that the petitioner had applied for bail and it is likely that he may be enlarged on bail. Looking to the gravity of the crime, it is spelt out, in case the petitioner is admitted to bail it would indulge in acts which would affect the public order. The order further recites that the petitioner escaped from the scene leaving behind their vehicles i.e. motor cycle, and indica Car. The injured, the order recites, were removed to hospital and subsequently on the basis of written report, case was registered at case crime No. 43 of 2009 under Section 307/506, IPC. On 25.2.2009, the petitioner and his accomplice were arrested from tri-junction Chhaprawat and on being interrogated, the petitioner and his accomplices confessed to have committed the crime and on their pointing out, the country made pistols were recovered and on that basis case was registered at case crime No. 79 of 2009 and 80 of 2009 under Section 25, Arms Act. The order further recites that the petitioner was also involved in criminal activities particularly at the time of election for the office of Gram Pradhan and also at the time of general election. It is further recited that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned A.G.A. at prolix length. Although various arguments were advanced across the bar, but the argument substantially raised is that there was inordinate delay in deciding the representation of the detenue by the Union of India. It is argued that the detenue preferred representation dated 30.3.2009 with accompanying prayer to set aside the detention order but the same was rejected on 28.4.2009 which by itself would bespeak that its decision was inordinately delayed. It is further argued that the impugned order has been passed without any material basis and the same has been passed in a routine course. It is further argued that in the cases cited to the discredit of the petitioner, most of the cases have culminated in acquittal and thus there was no basis for invoking the National Security Act against him. It is also argued that there was delay between the incident on which the detention order is founded and the passing of the detention order.;