- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. In both the aforesaid petitions questions of fact and law are similar and both the petitions can be decided by a common judgment against which learned Counsel for the parties have no objection. Writ Petition No. 20786 of 1998 shall be the leading case.
(2.) WRIT Petitions have been filed chal lenging orders dated 23-3-1998, which are Annexure 1 to both the writ petitions, passed by respondent No. 2, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which the petitioners have been detained. Petitioners have also challenged the legality of their continued detention. Along with the orders of detention, petitioners were also served with the grounds on which basis the detaining authority formed the subjective satisfac tion for detaining them. From perusal of the grounds it appears that petitioner Bal-ram Gupta was serving as Junior Engineer in mechanical branch of Jal Nigam, Banda. Petitioner Mushtaq Ali was working as contractor in the same branch of Jal Nigam. M. A. Khan was Executive En gineer in the Mechanical Branch of Jal Nigam, Banda. He was transferred on 29- 10-1997 from Banda to the head office of Jal Nigam, U. P. , Lucknow, but he con tinued to stay at Banda and was trying to get his transfer cancelled. From the grounds, it appears that there was bun gling of about Rs. Fifty lakhs of Govern ment money during the period Shri M. A. Khan was posted at Banda. Unauthorised payments were made to petitioner Mush taq Ali though he had not done any work. Deceased Prem Singh on transfer joined as Executive Engineer in place of Shri M. A. Khan. He noticed large scale bungling of Government money by his predecessor in league with petitioner Balram Gupta and Mustaq Ali. All the three pressurised Prem Singh not to inquire into the matter of alleged embezzlement of Government money but Prem Singh continued to dis charge his duties faithfully and honestly. Then he was threatened for life. Prem Singh felt so much harassed that he, at one point of time, decided to resign from the post and proceeded on leave. However, on persuation of his wife and considering the future of his children, he resumed his duties. It is further stated that in the night of 4/5-2-1998, between 9. 00 p. m. and 6. 00 a. m. the accused persons assembled at the residence of Shri M. A. Khan, Executive Engineer and hatched up a conspiracy to kill Prem Singh. Petitioner Balram Gupta went to Prem Singh and brought him from his house to Jeep No. U. S. G. 2987 which belonged to the Executive Engineer M. A. Khan and Samosh Kumar, son of Chun- noo was its driver. Shri Prem Singh was brought under the pretext that there is an urgent telephone call from his family and some one in his family has fallen ill. Prem Singh was brought to Railway Crossing on that Jeep. Petitioner Mushtaq Ali pierced a screw driver in his stomach and he was killed. Thereafter, body of the deceased Prem Singh was tied in a woolen Shawl and was put in the railway track with the design that it will be cut into pieces by a passing train and it shall be treated as a case of accident. Body of late Prem Singh was found in the morning of 5-2-1998, at 7. 00 a. m. The body was identified and a case was registered as case crime No. 20 of 1998, under Sections 302/201, I. P. C No body was named in the First Information Report. A special police team was deputed to inves tigate this offence. On 9-2- 1998, Executive Engineer M. A. KJian, petitioner Mushtaq Ali, Siraj Khan petitioner Balram Gupta and driver Santosh Kumar were arrested. The seven driver union was used in com mitting the offence and blood stained clothes of the deceased were also recovered. Subsequently, the investiga tion of this case was transferred to the Kotwali Police, Banda, where it was registered as case crime No. 86 of 1998, under Sections 364/302/201/109/120-B, I. RC. and Section 3 (2) (7)_of the S. C. S. T Act. Petitioners were sent to district jail, Banda under judicial custody on 10-2-1998. It appears that Santosh Kumar driver turned approver and his statement was recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. before Judicial Magistrate on 19-2-1998. By this statement, entire conspiracy and manner in which the offence was com mitted, was disclosed. In the grounds, it is further alleged that the petitioners along with other accused persons, on 22-2-1998, harassed aforesaid Santosh Kumar and he was given a beating and was also abused. Complaint regarding this occurrence in side jail was made by Santosh Kumar before C. J. M. on 23-2- 1993. Santosh Kumar was medically examined and then a case crime No. 126 of 1998, under Sections 147/504/506, I. P. C and 3 (1) (10) of S. CS. T. Act was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Banda. It is stated that in view of this occurrence Santosh Kumar was shifted from the district Jail, Banda to Children Hospital, Banda for security reasons.
(3.) THE detaining authority has men tioned in the grounds that on account of the murder of Prem Singh, the officers and employees from different departments of the district approached the detaining authority on 6-2-1998 and apprised him of their fear and feeling of insecurity. THEy also threatened to boycott the Parliamen tary Elections. THE detaining authority has said that in view of the aforesaid reaction among the employees, maintenance of public order and law and order was seriously threatened. It is also said that by the aforesaid occurrence of murder of the Executive Engineer, persons employed in technical services in the entire State, officers and employees of other departments and the public at large fell in a grip of fear and terror. It is also said that petitioners are trying for bail and if they are released on bail, they may again indulge in similar activities which shall be prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order. Petitioners were also informed that against the order of detention, under the Act they have a right to make a repre sentation to the Central Government -and Stale Government which may be sent through the Superintendent, District Jail, at the earliest. They were also informed that their matter will be referred to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Act within three weeks and they may sub mit their representation within that period. They were also informed that they have right of personal hearing under Sec tion 11 of the Act and if they so desire, this may also be specifically stated in an ap plication submitted through the jail Su perintendent.;