Amar Saran, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India and learned Additional Government Advocate. A detention order dated 6.9.2008 and the pursuant detention of the petitioner have been challenged by means of this petition.
(2.) The grounds of detention was that on 15.8.2008 at about 4- 5 PM, one bullock had strayed into the guava orchard of the petitioner, but the petitioner instead of chasing the animal away, in a pre-planned manner attacked the animal with Pharsa. Some villagers tried to stop the petitioner, but the petitioner violently attacked the animal and cut it. The report was lodged on 16.8.2008 under section 3/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and thereafter the petitioner was arrested. The alleged Pharsa was also got recovered from the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner, therefore, violated Hindu sentiments by this action. As the petitioner had been bailed out, it is argued that the detention order has been passed in a mala fide manner.
(3.) From a perusal of the ground of detention, we find that the ground of detention only indicated an outraged response of a farmer whose orchard had been damaged by a bullock.We do not think that any issue of public order is involved here. Simply because, one set of people become oversensitive in some matter, provides no ground for giving a go by to the prosecution under the normal criminal law and for taking recourse to the extraordinary measure of detaining a person without trial under a preventive law. We think, it would amount to abuse of the process of law.;