Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 222 (ALL)

RAKESH SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2002-02-04

M.KATJU, S.K.SINGH

body2002
M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 23-8-2001 Annexure 1 to the petition passed under the N. S. A. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that it is alleged that is on 27-6-2001 the petitioner and his two associates at about 4. 30 P. M. shot dead one Sunil Kumar Singh on the National High Way because Sunil Kumar Singh was objecting to the petitioner getting the two ponds of the Gram Sabha released and had been doing pairvi to get the illegal possession of the petitioner over the said ponds vacated. Litigation was going on in this connection in various courts. The petitioner after the murder went with a revolver in his hand firing in the air to create panic and terror in the public on the road, and due to terror in the locality the shopkeepers closed their shops. The residents of the village ran to their fields and starting running here and there. There was terror in the area. There are allegations that the petitioner had earlier committed several crimes under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code including crimes under Sections 302, 307 I. P. C. etc. ( 3 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate in which it has been stated that the District Magistrate was fully satisfied and when it was found necessary only then the preventive action was taken against the petitioner under the National Security Act because the activities of the petitioner had created terror and panic in the area. ( 4 ) A counter affidavit has also been filed by the Deputy Jailor about the representation submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of one Indra Sen has been introduced in the first information report which was subsequently removed and in his place the name of his younger brother Ugra Sen has been introduced. This has been explained in para 7 of the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate wherein it has been stated that this mistake occurred due to hurry. At any event the petitioner is neither Ugra Sen Singh nor Indra Sen Singh and hence that mistake will not affect the case against the petitioner. This has been explained in para 7 of the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate wherein it has been stated that this mistake occurred due to hurry. At any event the petitioner is neither Ugra Sen Singh nor Indra Sen Singh and hence that mistake will not affect the case against the petitioner. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was 8 days delay in deciding the representation. We are of the opinion that the law of habeas corpus should not be made over technical. Delay of 8 days or so some times take place in deciding the representation but that delay in our opinion will not necessarily vitiate the detention order. That will depend on the facts of each case. The representation was submitted on 30-8-2000 which was received in the office of the District Magistrate on 31-8-2000 who called for a report from the police on 1-9-2000. On receipt of the police report, the District Magistrate sent the papers to the State Govt. which was received by the State Govt. on 3-9-2000 vide paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate and that was sent to the Advisory Board on 4-9-2000. On 5-9-2000 it was forwarded to the State Govt. and the State Govt. submitted it to the Secretary and the Secretary after examination sent it to the State Government and it was rejected on 8-9-2000. Thus there is no delay as submitted by the learned govt. counsel. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of law and order and not public order. We do not agree with this submission. Apparently the petitioner with his associates had grabbed the Gram Sabha property and the deceased was trying to get it released. It is well known that in Uttar Pradesh almost the entire land of the Gram Sabha has been grabbed by the people having muscle power and money. The land of the Gram Sabha is meant to be used for serving the people of the village, particularly the poor people, by setting up a school or dispensary or cold storage or for some other such purpose, but instead people with power or money have grabbed the entire land of the Gram Sabha in U. P. and the result is that the poor people of the Villages are deprived of the use of such land. ( 7 ) WE are clearly of the view that the incident relates to public order as it created panic and terror in the locality and the petitioner was illegally trying to resist efforts to release the Gram Sabha land grabbed by him. Thus there is no force in thus Petition and it is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .