- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi and Naseemuddin, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel appearing for respon dents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 30th March, 1998 passed by District Magistrate, Kausambi under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as 'act', under which the petitioner has been detained. Petitioner was also served with the ground of detention on which basis respondent No. 3 formed his subjective satisfaction for passing the impugned order. From perusal of the grounds, it ap pears that on 14th March, 1998 at 3. 00 p. m. one Harchatti Lal alias Nagendra was murdered allegedly by the petitioner and others on account of enmity stated therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the First Information Report and the grounds the case, at the most, could be of the disturbance of the law and order and not public order. The submission is that it was a dis pute between the two factions on account of the animosity developed between them regarding election and such a dispute hardly had to do with the public order. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was confined in Naini Jail, Allahabad when the impugned order was passed and he has not applied for bail till date and satisfaction regarding allega tion that he is likely to come out on bail, is based on no material. Learned A. G. A. , on the other hand, has submitted that the murder was committed in the broad day light in the presence of the village persons and it could nave the effect on public order. The learned A. G. A. has further submitted that the order of detention can be passed where the detenu was already in jail. The only requirement is that there should be material on record that there is possibility that the detenu may come out on bail.
(3.) WE have considered the submis sions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record and, in our opinion, the facts stated in the grounds, only discloses the problem of law and order and not public order. There is also no material on record to show that the petitioner had made any attempt to come out on bail and satisfaction in that connec tion also does not appear based on any material. It is also noteworthy that on similar allegations another accused in the case namely Kalka was also detained, who has been released as Advisory Board did not find sufficient cause for detention. In the circumstances, petitioner is entitled for release. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to set petitioner at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. Petition allowed. .;