- (1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. The present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by one Sushil Moonchh (Sushil alias Moonchh) son of Chandra Pal Singh Jat, resident of Village Mathedi, P. S. Ratan-puri, District Muzafarnagar, against an order of detention, passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, on 21-1-1999. The detention order was passed under Sec tion 3 (3) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'nsa' ). He is at present confined in District Jail Tehri-Garhwal.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The present order has been chal lenged, amongst other grounds, mainly on the ground that after the refusal by the Advisory Board to ratify or approve the earlier detention order within a very short span of time the petitioner was again detained under the NSA. The previous detention order was passed on 27- 11-1998. It was revoked on 26-12-1998. On 26-12-1998 a programme on the Television under the title "india's Most Wanted" was telecast in connection with the present petitioner disclosing the incident of mur der pertaining to Sunil Sachdeva alias Bittu. After that telecast at 10. 00 p. m. in Zee TV programme the present detention order dated 2-1-1999 was again passed by the District Magistrate. The main grounds taken in the detention order were that as a result of the telecast of the programme "india's Most Wanted" throughout the country, a great anger and anguish was caused in the public mind at large. This programme, specially the narration in detail of the murder of Sunil Sachdeva alias Bittu by you and the members of your gang, has created a deep sense of anguish and raised anger in the public mind. The public on learning the details of your misdeeds felt a sense of fear, terror, and insecurity. It had adversely af fected the maintenance of law and order. Another incident had been reported in this detention order pertaining to 27-12-1998. This pertains to the killing of two impor tant mentbers of the gang of this detenu, viz. Girish Bahuguna and Arun Sharma, in police encounter. The death of two very important members of the gang of this detenu had not only shocked him but also enraged him. The annoyance has gone to the extent of professing by the detenu to avenge the murder of his two close as sociates, named above. He had also taken a vow lo that effect in jail. He had also sent threats to certain persons of the district. Their names have not been disclosed, rightly so, so that these people may not become soft targets of some of his as sociates who are still at large evading the police dragnet including Deepak Sharma. The third reason for the present detention disclosed in the detention order is that the detenu is trying to wipe off the evidence against him with the help of his associates, who are still at large. They are threatening, the witnesses of dire consequences in the event of these witnesses deposing against the detenu. This is adversely affecting the maintenance of law and order. The last ground apparently taken in the detention order is that the detenu-petitioner was currently detained at the District Jail, Garhwal, in connection with case Crime No. 87 of 1998 under Section 2/3 of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'gangsters Act' only ).
(3.) IT has been urged before us that in the previous detention order, which had been revoked by the Government on 26-12-1998 the above ground was already considered and not found sufficient for deten tion. The previous detention order is also appended to the writ petition as Annexure 17. The grounds of detention are annexed as Annexure 18. A perusal of Annexure 18 gives a clear indication that the incident relating to the murder of Bittu alias Sunil Sachdeva dated 18-6-1998 at about 10. 30 a. m. was already present as ground No. 2 in the earlier grounds of detention. Even ground No. 1 of Annexure 18 categorically shows that there was charge against the petitioner that while detained inside the jail, he was able to carry out nefarious activities including killings not only in Muzaffarnagar, but also in other districts. The activities of the petitioner had adver sely affected the public tranquillity of the region. IT had created a sense of insecurity and terror in the public mind. Even the ground of his attempt to come out from jail in a case under Section 302, I. P. C. was also taken in the previous order of detention. The only new ground that has been taken in the present detention appears to be that of the telecast of murder of Sunil Sachdev in the programme known as "india's Most Wanted" detailing the events and the of fences committed by the petitioner along with his associates and also murder of Sunil Sachdev specially. Before the other ground that could be said to be a new ground, the ground taken in the present detention order is that as per reliable in formation the petitioner after coming to know of the death of two of his closest associates, viz. Girish Bahuguna and Arun Sharma, dying in police encounter on 27-12-1988, he was extending threats to some persons in the district of Muzaffarnagar and also expressing his anguish in so many words that he would retaliate and will avenge blood by blood. Some dates in this context are material. The most important fact of this case is that the programme "india's Most Wanted" was telecast at 10. 00 p. m. on 22-12-1998 and it adversely affected the public mind or has created a feeling of terror and insecurity. The another impor tant aspect before considering the argu ments also to be given due consideration and it is that the earlier order of detention dated 27- 11-1998 was invoked by the Government and the information of revocation must have reached the detenu after a day or two in jail. The incident of police encounter of the two closest as sociates of the petitioner also had taken place on 27-12-1998 and the present detention order came to be passed on 2- 1-1999. The wheels of the time have rolled on so quickly in the case of the present detenu that in a short span of nine days the above-narrated circumstances occurred. This in cludes the revocation of last detention order on 26-12-1998 and the fresh order on 2-1-1999. Except the above mentioned two circumstances, no other new circumstance has been disclosed for fresh detention of the detenu.;