S. N. BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THIS is a habeas corpus petition filed by Smt. Prem Kaur challenging the illegal detention of her son Krishna Kumar (c) Bebi,-son of Lokendra Nath, by caste Jat, resident of Gopalgarh, Bharatpur.
(2.) THE order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Bharatpur on 9th October, 1986 Annx. 2 u/s 3 (2) (3) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the 'act'. THE said order was confirmed by the State Government vide their order dated 15. 10. 1986 (Annx. 4 ). THE Advisory Board also recommended the detention and therefore, an order came to be passed on 18. 11. 1986 (Anx. 7) u/s 13 of the Act, confirming the order of detention dated 9. 10. 1986 for detaining Krishna Kumar for one year upto 8. 10. 1987, and these orders have been challenged by the petitioner. The writ petition was filed on 1. 5. 1987. Notices were issued and the State Government has filed the return on 13. 7. 1987. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. The respondents have produced grounds of detention wherein they have placed reliance on the following instances. *- (i) Krishna Kumar has involved in FIR No. 232/81 u/s 326 IPC and 307 IPC for throwing some liquid on the face of Santosh Kumar wherein challan was filed on 31. 5. 81 which is pending in the court of law. (ii) An FIR No. 321/81 u/s 324 r/w Sec. 34 against Krishna Kumar and other accused persons for inflicting knife blows on Vishnu Sharma, wherein a charge-sheet was filed in the court on 30. 6. 81. (iii) Similarly, he was also involved in an incident of snatching the bag containing a sum of Rs. 2419/-from one Islam Khan, Manager, Neelkamal Cinema after throwing acid, for which FIR No. 322/84 was registered u/s 394 IPC and the charge-sheet was filed on 14. 12. 84 against Krishna Kumar and others and that matter is pending. (iv) The detenue was also involved in a case registered as FIR No. 78/85 u/ss 307, 353, 332, 147, 146, 336, 435 and 379 IPC in an incident which happened on 22. 2. 85, when the funeral procession of the dead body of Raja Mansingh was being taken out. That matter is still pending. (v) Krishna Kumar was also named in another FIR No. 108/85 registered u/s 148, 323, 379 and 307 IPC for inflicting injuries to Khushi Ram and Hariram for which FIR was lodged on 30. 6. 85 and is pending trial. (vi) Another FIR No. 644/85 u/s 147,148,149, 323 and 307 IPC was also registered where there were allegations against Krishna Kumar and his other friends for firing on Raghunandan Sharma at his house. That matter is still pending investigation. (vii) Another FIR No. 48/86 u/s 224 IPC was lodged on 31. 1. 86 implicating Krishna Kumar. (viii) Lastly, Krishna Kumar was also named in FIR No. 289/86 registered u/s 307 IPC for opening fire on Girdharilal in a public place and there are other general allegations without quoting any particular instance. In her writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that the detaining authority did not apply its mind and the facts were not placed before her in right perspective, and the authorities have mis-led and mis-represented her by concealing material facts that in some of those cases, the detenue had been acquitted and, therefore, his detention order is liable to be quashed, and in this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Sitaram Somani Vs. State of Rajasthan (1 ).
(3.) IT has been submitted that in the first instance quoted in the grounds as above, the detenue was charge-sheeted only u/s 324 IPC and not u/s 307 IPC and further that the detenue was acquitted in that case on 13. 8. 1985, and that it has been wrongly mentioned in the grounds of detention that the matter is still pending in the court. Similarly in case (ii) also, the detenue has been acquitted as far back as on 27. 11. 1982 which fact has been concealed from the detaining authority. In the (iii) case, the detenue was charge-sheeted not u/s 394 IPC but u/s 324 IPC and was acquitted on 23. 10. 86 and thus, these three instances should not have been considered and if considered, the fact that the detenue was acquitted in these three cases should have also been considered by the detaining authority. ;