101 of 1985 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Ghazipur Police Station against unknown accused.
It has also been companytended therein that in the bail applications moved on behalf of the petitioners before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, this fact was also mentioned.
222 of 1985 under Section 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on 13th June 1985 at about 14.30 hours at Police Station Lucknow in which both the petitioners and Anandi Shukla were named.
The other detenu Rajiv Hazra was served with a detention order on identical rounds by the District Magistrate, Lucknow.
As regards the first two grounds Nos.
These incidents are companyfined to particular persons.
On the basis of this F.I.R., Crime No.
1 was companycerned the respective detenus were denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to represent against the order of detention and the detention order thus stood vitiated.
After hearing the learned companynsel for the parties the High Court of Allahabad held that so far as ground No.
The petitioners along with other detenus companytended in the writ petitions that as regards the ground No.
Ram Kumar and Nand Kishore proceeded towards home on one rickshaw while the other rickshaw was being occupied by the companyplainant.
On this basis crime No.
That on 13th June, 1985 one Baldeo Prasad Awasthi, resident of Ismailganj, Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow that his son Ram Kumar and his son in law, Nand Kishore had gone to meet an accused in the District Jail where the companyplainant also reached at about 1.30 p.m. but they companyld number meet the accused.
As regards the third ground it has also been submitted that an application was filed by three under trials Rajendra Singh, Pooran Mal and Jhamman on 8th October, 1985 addressed to the Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow submitted to the Superintendent District Jail, Lucknow for being forwarded to the Magistrate stating that some unknown persons had fired at Vijay Pratap Singh and Kamal Kishore Saini and other persons names had been implicated falsely.
That on 16th August, 1985 at about 14.
1 and 2, it has been companytended further that they pertain to the maintenance of law and order and number to public order.
The grounds of detention were duly served on the detenus mentioning therein that the detenus may make representation to the State Government against the said order of detention and the same would be placed before the Advisory Board before whom the detenus would be afforded opportunity of personal hearing.
The said order of detention was challenged in two writ petitions filed before the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of writ of habeas companypus for producing the body of the respondent along with other respondent detenus before the Court and for quashing of the order of detention.
3, the application of the companyaccused as well as the statement made in the bail application filed on behalf of the detenus alleging that they had been falsely implicated in the same case and the police report thereon, were number produced before the detaining authority before passing of the detention order.
Nand Kishore ran helter and skelter when the accused are said to have chased Ram Kumar for about 200 steps and fired twice or thrice as a companysequence of which Ram Kumar fell dead on the spot and Nand Kishore as also the rickshaw puller and the companyplainant sustained injuries.
It was also held that the incidents referred to in ground Nos.
The order of detention was therefore, quashed by the High Court.
At 11.00 in the night some persons informed the companyplainant that his brother had been shot by certain persons and when the companyplainant reached the spot he found Vishnu Narain Awasthi lying in a pool of blood and he had already died.
From the Judgment and order dated 17.4.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in W. P. No.
It was alleged that the companyplainant accompanied by other policemen on duty were bringing back accused after their production in the companyrt of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
In the said order of detention it has also been stated that the District Magistrate after companysidering the fact that since the two detenus petitioners had filed applications for bail which were pending before the Court and for which the detenus were likely to be released on bail, passed the impugned order of detention after being subjectively satisfied that the petitioners on their release from jail will participate in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
It has also been held that relevant materials such as the application of the three under trials as well as the statement in the bail application of the detenus referring to the statement of the under trials that the detenus had been implicated falsely were number placed before the detaining authority and as such the order of detention passed by the detaining authority was invalid and bad in as much as there was numberproper subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority due to number companysideration of the application of the companyaccused and the police report.
The companyplainant as also Ram Kumar and.
1 of the order of detention is companycerned, to the detenus and also of the number placement of the application made by the company accused before the Judicial Magistrate to the effect that the detenus were falsely implicated in the said case as Vijay Pratap Singh was fired at by some unknown assailants and this fact was also mentioned in the bail application made by the detenus before the Court and the police report submitted thereon.
I and 2 do number affect public order inasmuch as the reach and effect and the potentiality of the said incidents did number disturb the even tempo of the life of the companymunity, as it did number create any terror and panic in the locality.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURlSDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
1 and the basis of their companyplicity came to be known only in the material found in the companyrse of the investigation.
It is alleged that on the basis of the F.I.R. On 4th June, 1985 crime No.
Both the detenus petitioners proceeded towards an accused, Vijay Pratap Singh, whereupon Vijay Pratap Singh, in panic tried to retract and turned back when Rajiv Hazra is said to have given a call that it was appropriate time to finish the enemy who was before them as a result of which both the detenus took out their pistols and Kamal Kishore Saini, the detenu, with the intention of killing Vijay Pratap Singh fired at him which resulted in injuries to him and since this incident thither and an atmosphere of terror spread over the area.
This bail application was moved much before the order of detention which was passed on 28th November, 1985.
Against this order the instant appeal has been filed on special leave.
10 hours Head Constable 129 C.P. Balram Pandey of the Reserve Police Lines, Lucknow lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Qaiserbagh, Lucknow that on the same day he was on duty along with other police men in the Judicial Lock up, Collectorate, Lucknow.
450 of 1985 under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Qaiserbagh Police Station on 16th August, 1985 and after investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted which is under companysideration.
6823 of 1985 and 6522 of 1985.
531 of 1986.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows The respondent Kamal Kishore Saini was detained under Section3 2 of National Security Act, 1980 by an order served on him on 28th November, 1985 on three grounds which are stated hereunder That on 4th June, 1985 one Jeet Narain Awasthi, resident of Indira Nagar, Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Ghazipur that on the night of 4/5th June, 1985 his younger brother Vishnu Narain Awasthi at about 20 hours had left to sleep in house No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. RAY, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in writ petition Nos.
Shakeel Ahmed Syed for the Respondent.
When they reached a little distance from the Jail, near the residence of the jail Superintendent, at about 1.45 p.m. Rajiv Hazra and Kamal Kishore Saini, the two detenus and one Anandi Shukla, said to be an accomplice of one Ram Gopal, came on a scooter, stopped it and challenged Ram Kumar, Nand Kishore and the companyplainant and filed at them.
The names of the detenus, it is said figured during investigation and the charge sheet has been submitted in the companycerned companyrt which is pending trial.
6823 of 1985 .
After investigation a charge sheet has been submitted to the companyrt which is pending companysideration.
DalVeer Bhandari for the petitioner.
2040 of Indira Nagar, Lucknow occupied by Sri R.S. Raghuvanshi since Sri Raghuvanshi had gone out to Jaunpur, his home town and had entrusted custody of his house to the said Vishnu Narain Awasthi.
