Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 481 (ALL)

AQEEL JAMIL KHAN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2001-05-15

M.KATJU, R.B.MISRA

body2001
( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is challenging the impugned detention order dated 2-2-2001 passed under S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act. Several grounds have been taken in the petition, but since we are allowing the petition on the very first ground it is not necessary to go into the other grounds. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a bus driver who is a Muslim. On 10-1-2001 he was driving his bus. At 2. 30 P. M. there was a collision between the bus and a cyclist Manoj, and Manoj sustained injuries. It appears that Muslims came to support the petitioner and Hindus came to support Manoj and there was stoning and some quarrel. ( 4 ) IN our opinion this was not a proper ground for passing the detention order. ( 5 ) SECTION 3 (2) of the National Security Act states :-"the Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respectto any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. " ( 6 ) THIS provision implies that the order of detention can only be passed against a person who has propensity of committing acts which are prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order or maintenance of essential supplies and services. This means that the person should have tendencies or inclinations on the basis of which an inference can be drawn that he is likely even in the future to do such acts. ( 7 ) IN our opinion it cannot be said that the petitioner is a person who has propensity to commit the acts referred to in the grounds of detention, rather the act mentioned in the grounds of detention appears to be an isolated event due to an unfortunate accident which occurred on 10-1-2001. There is nothing to say that the petitioner has propensity to instigate communal tension. Accidents can occur often and it was unfortunate that the aforesaid accident took the turn which it did in the present case. There is nothing to say that the petitioner has propensity to instigate communal tension. Accidents can occur often and it was unfortunate that the aforesaid accident took the turn which it did in the present case. ( 8 ) HENCE in our view, the detention order dated 2-2-2001 was passed arbitrarily and it is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless required in some other criminal or preventive detention case. Petition allowed. .