The third ground is a companycocted incident in order to give credibility to the detention order by making it appear that the petitioner was indulging in anti social acts which affected the maintenance of public order.
211 under Sections 307, 323 P.C., which is under companysideration of the Court.
The representation was companysidered and rejected by the State Government on July 28, 1988 and the petitioner was informed of the same through the Jail Superintendent, Meerut.
Thereafter the petitioner has companye for ward with this petition under Article 32 of the Constitu tion.
On 11 2 88 at about 11.00 A.M. in the day at the Binauli Road in Kasba and Police Station Sardhana you alongwith your companypanion Vinay Kumar went to the Shop of Shri Ashok Kumar and you threatened Shri Ashok Kumar that he should pay Rs.
10,000 Ten thousand by tomorrow or day after tomorrow otherwise he will be killed.
Khajan Singh at Police Station in G.D. No.
These prayers were acceded and on numberice being issued to the Central Government, the Central Government made its repre sentation through companynsel.
Therein he had set out that he wished to have the services of a friend at the time of the meeting of the Advisory Board to make representations on his behalf.
On the basis of information of Shri Ashok Kumar Crime No.
359 of 1988.
H.C. Khajan Singh with the help of other employ ees when tried to arrest you then you ran away on the Motor Cycle alongwith your companypanion while firing in the air.
On April 5, 1988 an order of detention was passed against the petitioner under Section 3 2 of the Act but the petitioner companyld number be served the order of detention and taken into preventive custody as he was ab sconding.
Consequently he was treated an absconder and resort was had to Section 7 2 of the Act and a proclamation was obtained against him under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code on May 4, 1988 and the said order was executed on May 4, 1988.
In his petition, the petitioner has raised several grounds to assail his detention, one of them being the number furnishing of the investigation report of Shri R.C. Verma, Inspector of Police who had verified the truth and companyrect ness of the report of HC 1057 Khajan Singh about the inci dent which took place on March 3, 1988.
14 at 1010 hours and investigation to this effect has been done by the Inves tigation Inspector Shri R.C. Verma and on investigation the aforesaid incidents were found companyrect and entry to this effect has been carried out at G.D. No.
The companytentions of the petitioner in his petition have been refuted by the respondents in their companynter affidavits, one by the second respondent, District Magistrate, Meerut and the other filed by Shri P.N. Tripathi, Upper Division Assistant, Confidential Section 8 of U.P. Civil , Secre tariat, Lucknow on behalf of the first respondent, the State of U.P. We will number examine the merits of the companytentions of the petitioner in seriatum.
The petitioner was denied opportu nity to have the assistance of a friend when he appeared before the Advisory Board on August 2, 1988.
The grounds of detention also set out the following The petitioner if he so desires companyld make repre sentation under Section 8 of the Act to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home, State Government through the Superintend ent of Jail at the earliest possible That the papers relating to the petitioners detention would be submitted under Section 10 of the Act to the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention and that if the representation is received late it would number be companysidered by the Advisory Board That if the petitioner so desired he companyld also make representation to the Government of India by addressing the representation to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Internal Security Department , North Block, New Delhi through the Superintendent of the Jail, and That if under the provisions of Section 11 1 the petitioner desired to have a personal hearing by the Adviso ry Board he should specifically make mention of it in his representation or he should inform the State Government of his desire through the Jail Superintendent.
After receipt of the companyments of the SSP, Meerut the representation along with the companyments of the District Magistrate were sent to the State Government on July 21, 1988.
Due to your aforesaid misdeed terror in Sardhana and in District Meerut terrorism has spread and in this way you have acted in such manner which is against the Maintenance of Public Law and order situation.
Mr. Jain, learned companynsel for the petitioner assailed the order of detention on the following grounds All the three grounds set out in the grounds of detention even if true, are number incidents which would affect the maintenance of public order and at best they can be company strued only as offences companymitted against individuals or incidents which are likely to affect the law and order situation.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The Radio gram further set out as follows Board further directs that either District Magistrate or Superintendent of Police to appear before the Board on the date of hearing with.all relevant records and on request of the detenu his best friend number advocate may also be allowed to appear with him.
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Crl.
Thereafter the petitioner surrendered himself in Court on July 4, 1988 and he was sent to the District Jail at Meerut where he was served the detention order and the grounds of detention on July 5, 1988.
Even prior to it the companyies of the repre sentation were forwarded to the State Government and the Advisory Board on July 19, 1988.
the National Security Act here inafter the Act by the State of Uttar Pradesh and for his release from custody.
The representation was received by the District Magistrate, Meerut on July 15, 1988.
The Adviso ry Board companysidered the written and oral representations of the petitioner and gave a report that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
Since this companytention was number raised in the petition and since the Central Government had number been impleaded a party respondent, the petitioners companynsel filed a petition and sought leave of Court for raising an additional ground and for impleading the Central Government as a party respondent.
assaulted them.
It is companymon ground that the petitioner made a represen tation to the Government against his detention and the order passed therefore.
By your afore said indecent activity in Sardhana and in District Meerut terrorism has prevailed and in this way you have acted in such manner which is against the provisions of Maintenance of Public law and Order situation.
You said to Yusuf etc.
On 3.3.88 in the Kasba of Sardhana, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut, you taking a Revolver in your hand in the market of Sardhana said to the Shopkeepers that who so ever will number pay money CHAUTH , he cannot open the shop in the market, due to which the shops were closed in the market.
K. Jain, R.K. Khanna and A.S. Pundir for the Petitioner.
In the grounds of detention three grounds were set out for the detention of the petitioner and they read as fol lows On 8.7.87 at about 9.30 P.M. in the night at Kasba Sardhana, Police Station Sard hana Meerut you alongwith your other companypan ions went to the garden of Lala Om Prakash Jain which is in the possession of Yusuf S o Ismail on companytract.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to seek the issue of appropriate writs for quashing an order of detention passed against him under Section 3 2 of.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Mrs. Rachna Joshi, Dalveer Bhandari, Ms. C.K. Sucharita and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
A companyy of the Radio gram was sent to the Jail Superintendent and it was shown to the petitioner and his acknowledgement was obtained.
The State Govern ment accepted the report of the Advisory Board and passed a further order on August 17/18, 1988 companyfirming the detention of the petitioner.
who were present there that they do number pay the CHAUTH fee for GUNDAGARDI of the Mango, therefore, you using abusive language said Kill the Salas, so they may vanish for ever and you people with an intention to kill Yusuf etc.
Information to this effect has been got diarised by HC.
On the information of Shri Yusuf a case has been registered against you as Crime No.
However, during the hearing of the writ petition numberarguments were advanced in respect of this ground of objection.
The meeting of the Advisory Board to companysider the case of the petitioner was fixed on August 2, 1988 and a Radio gram was sent by the State Government to the District Magis trate and the Superintendent District Jail, Meerut informing the date of the meeting of the Advisory Board.
