Farhat Khan vs State of U.P. and Others

B.K. Sharma, J.—The petitioner has preferred this habeas corpus petition for quashing the detention order dated 20-6-96 (Annexure-II) and the order of confirmation thereof passed on 29-6-96.

The said detention order has been challenged on various grounds :

A plea was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu, relying on an unreported judgment of the Apex Court in Habeas Carpus Petition No. 9907 of 1986, Ram Prawesh Singh v. District Magistrate, Deoria, that the detention order having been passed on 20-6-1996 most of the period of detention has already expired.

The counsel for the parties have informed us that the question of legality of premature release before the expiry of period of detention has already expired is pending before a Full Bench of this Court, in which arguments have been concluded but the judgment is awaited. In view of the pendency of that matter before the Full Bench, this Court would have to wait for the judgment of that Full Bench and then to act according to the said judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu took time to inform the Court, whether he would press this point in view of the pendency of the said Full Bench proceeding. Now ultimately since learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu has informed the Court on 20-6-1996 that he is not pressing his prayer for premature release on the said ground that the detenu-petitioner has already undergone most of the detention period. Consequently, this plea is rejected as not pressed.

Now we proceed to dispose of this habeas corpus petition on merits.

The one ground urged before us was that the detaining authority did not inform the detenu-petitioner that he has, a right to make a representation against the detention order to the Central Government and thus he was denied the constitutional right to make a representation to the Government of India which is violative to Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In support of this plea reliance was placed on a Division Bench Judgment dated 11-7-1996 of this Court in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 2708 of 1996, Madan Mohan v. State of U.P. and two Ors., in which one of us (Hon. B.K. Sharma J.) was a member, where in it was held that it was the duty of the detaining authority to inform the detenu of his right to make a representation against the order of detention to the Central Government and in case it was not done the order of detention was vitiated.

It is unnecessary to dilate on this point for the simple reason that this is no longer good law in the view of the subsequent Full Bench decision of this Court dated 21-3-1997 in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 25526 of 1996, Raj Bahadur Yadav v. State of U.P. and four Ors. 1997 All LJ 1975.

It was claimed in the petition that the representation made by the detenu-petitioner was unduly retained by the Superintendent, District Jail, Rampur, that the representation was not immediately despatched to the State Government and was despatched after a considerable time and further that the State Government had not considered the representation within a reasonable time and had slept over the matter for a considerable time and for all these reasons, the detention of the detenu-petitioner was illegal. It was specifically said that the representation was received by the State Government on 11-7-1996, but it had rejected it on 31-7-1996.

In the petition and the supplementary affidavit filed before this Court on behalf of the petitioner it was not stated as it when the representation was preferred by the detenu-petitioner before the Superintendent, District Jail, Rampur where he was detained. There is a counter-affidavit of the Superintendent, District Jail Rampur Sri S.M. Rizvi dated 6-2-1977 to the supplementary-affidavit aforesaid. In para 4 of the said counter affidavit it is stated that'' the detention order dated 20-6-1996 was received on the same day and it was served upon the petitioner along with the grounds of detention and other materials and after reading the same he refused to sign on the same and acknowledge receipt of the same, that there after the report was sent, to the District Magistrate, Rampur and ultimately on 22-6-1996 the petitioner accepted the papers and signed on the same. Sri Rizvi further stated, on oath in the said counter affidavit that the representation of the petitioner was submitted by him (petitioner-detenu) on 3-7-1996 and on the same day it was sent to the District Magistrate, Rampur which was received at his Camp Office on 3-7-1996 in the night through special messenger. It may be mentioned here that even while taking the plea that there was considerable delay in disposal of his representation by the State Government, he (detenu-petitioner) deliberately withheld the date on which he moved his representation before the jail authorities. It shows that he has not come before this Court with clean hands.

Sri Indrajeet Verma, District Magistrate, Rampur, respondent No. 2 in the petition, stated in his counter-affidavit dated 25-9-1996 in para 4 that the representation of the detenu-petitioner was sent to the State Government on 5-7-1996 and the Superindentent of Police, Rampur was asked to give his report on the facts narrated in the representation, that after receiving the report of the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, the parawise comments were prepared and the same was sent to the Stale Govt. on 10-7-1996.

Then there is the counter-affidavit dated 24-9-1996 of Hem Chandra, Upper Division Assistant in Confidential Section 7, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow that the petitioner''s undated representation was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Rampur along with his comments to the State Government on 10-7-1996 which was received by the State Government on 11 7-96, that it was placed before the Advisory Board by the State Government on 11-7-1996, that a copy of petitioner''s representation was retained by the State Government as such it was examined and a detailed note was put up by the section concerned on 11-7-1996 and it was finally rejected by the State Government on 31-7-1996. It was further stated in his counter-affidavit that the District Magistrate, Rampur sent his report to the State Government along with the detention order dated 20-6-1996 and all the material and documents and the same was received by the State " Government on 24-6-1996, that after examining every aspect in detail the order of detention was approved by the State Government within 12 days from the date of detention order on 26-6-1996 as required u/s 3(4) of the National Security Act, that the fact about the approval of detention order was communicated to the detenu-petitioner through district authorities by the State Government on 28-6-1996, that the State Government reported to the Central Government about the approval of the detention order on 28-6-1996 and on the same day the detention order, grounds of detention and all other papers, the copies of which were sent by the detaining authority to the State Government, were also sent to the Central Government, which were received by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 2-7-1996 within seven days from the date of approval as provided u/s 3(5) of the Act. It is further stated in the said counter-affidavit that the case of the detenu-petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board by the State Govt. on 1-7-1996 along with papers within 21 days from the date of actual detention of the detenu-petitioner on 20- 6-1996 as provided u/s 10 of the Act, that the Advisory Board heard the petitioner detenu on 15-7-1996, that the report of the Advisory Board indicating that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu-petitioner was received by the State Government vide Registrar, Advisory Board (Detention) letter dated 22-7-1996 and thereafter the State Government again examined the entire matter of the petitioner in detail and since the Government was of the view that the order of detention deserves to be confirmed, confirmation order for detention of 12 months was issued on 1 -8-1996.

In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by Sri Hem Chandra, it was stated on oath in para 4 that on receiving the representation of the detenu-petitioner on 11-7-1996, it was examined and a detailed note was put by the Section concerned, that the Deputy Secretary, special Secretary and Home Secretary examined the aforesaid representation on 11-7-1996 itself and forwarded it to the higher authority for final orders, that before the final orders of the Government the file was requisitioned by the Chief Secretary for examination of the said representation and in consequence thereof the file was recalled the office of the Governnor of Uttar Pradesh and submitted to the Chief Secretary on 18-7-1996 through the Secretary Home and Confidential Department, that the Chief Secretary, U. P. considered the representation and submitted it for orders of the Governor on 21 -7-1996, that the file was, received in the office of the Governnor of U.P. on 22-7-1996 arid that the Governor of U.P. considered the representation and rejected it on 31-7-1996.

It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner-detenu that Shri Hem Chandra was only an Upper Division Assistant in the Secretariat and that no responsible authority of the State Government had come forward to controvert the petitioner''s (detenu''s) allegations on affidavit. In my view, Sri Hem Chandra, Upper Division Assistant in the Confidential Section in the Secretariat was competent to swear counter affidavit and supplementary-counter-affidavit. It is not the case of the petitioner-detenu that Sri Hem Chandra was not conversant with the facts or that he had twisted the facts or has narrated false facts in his said counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit. Therefore, there is no reason as to why his counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit be not given due weight.

The following authorities have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu on the question of delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner-detenu :

(1) Harish Pahwa Vs. State of U. P. and Others, ;

(2) Devi Lal Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and Another, ;

(3) Kamarunnissa and Others Vs. Union of India and another, .

In the case of Kamarunissa (supra) the Apex Court said that the question of delay has to be answered on the facts and circumstances of each case and whether or not the delay is properly explained would depend on the facts of each case.

In the case Fitrat Raza Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, , the representation made on 8-8-1981 was considered by the State Government and ultimately rejected on 24-8-1981 and it was held that on the facts of the case there was not undue delay in its consideration.

In Birendra Kumar Rai alias Virendra Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the representation of the detenu was dated 10 - 4-1992 and it was rejected by the Central Government on 27-5-1992 and the explanation furnished for the time taken was examined and accepted. "In that case the representation was wrongly marked to some, other section and so it took seven days for the representation to reach the correct section due to wrong marking and there was time taken in postal delay The Apex Court accepted the explanation and said that the time taken cannot be taken to lead to the inference of inaction or callousness on the part of the authorities.

In the case State of U.P. Vs. Shakeel Ahmed, in the facts and circumstances of the case delay in disposal of the representation of 23 days was held to be not fatal.

In the Kamlabai (Smt) Vs. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and Others, it was held that the delay in considering the representation was genuine and cannot be proved fatal if there is an explanation and that short delay cannot be given undue importance having regard to the administrative action. About the facts of the case the Apex Court said "We do not think that the delay in this case is so inordinate as to warrant interference.

There is also an authority Vijai Laxmi v. State of Tamil Nadu 1995 SCC (Crl) 176. In that case the State Government had received the representation on 18-5-1992 and conveyed the rejection thereof, on 23-6-1992, which was received by the detenu on 26-2-1992 and perusing the counter affidavit of the District Deputy Secretary about the handling of the representation from the date of its receipt by the Government and having perused the stages through which the file containing the representation was processed, the Apex Court found that the representation was dealt with promptly and there was no indifference, lethargy or negligence in dealing with the same and that the file was not unnecessarily help up at any level but moved from level to level promptly and the explanation tendered by the Deputy Secretary was accepted and it was said that it did not betray any lack of sense of urgency in dealing with the representation.

In the facts and the circumstances of the present case also I am satisfied from the explanation furnished by Hem Chandra, Upper Division Assistant of the Seretariat and hold that there was no unreasonable and unexplained delay in handling and disposing of the representation of the petitioner-detenu.

The next argument of the learned counsel for the detenu-petitioner was that on 15-7-1996 and order dated 14-7-1996 vide letter No. 745 was communicated to the detenu-petitioner that his case is likely to be considered by the Advisory Board and that he would represent himself on the next date and time of the hearing, that this order was served on him in the evening in the district Jail, so he had hardly any time to prepare and represent himself with complete picture of the case before the Advisory Board and as such his detention is vitiated as he was not given reasonable opportunity to represent and defend himself before the Adisory Board.

Sri Hem Chandra , Upper Division Assistant in Confidential Section 7, of U.P. Secretariat Lucknow in his supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17-1-1997 stated in para 5 that the Advisory Board fixed the hearing of the petitioner''s case on 15-7-1996 and it was communicated that if the petitioner wanted to appear along with his next friend (non -advocate) he may be informed to bring his next friend (non-advocate) on the date and lime of hearing, which fact the State Government communicated to the petitioner through the district authorities on 11-7-1996 and that the averments to the contrary are incorrect, Shri Indrajeet Verma, respondent No. 2, stated in para 21 of his supplementary counter affidavit dated 11-2-1997 that before the petitioner was sent from district jail Rampur (to Lucknow) on 14-1-1997, he was informed the date and time for appearing before the Advisory Board and that the detenu petitioner may appear with his next friend (non advocate) but the detenu-petitioner did not request that he wanted to appear before the Advisory Board along with his next friend (non-advocate), that on 15-7-1992 the detenu-petitioner, appeared before the Advisory Board for hearing and that it is totally incorrect that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the detenu-petitioner before the Advisory Board.

The Superintendent, District Jail, Rampur S.H.M. Rizvi in his supplementary counter-affidavit dated 6-2-1997 stated that permission was received on 14-7-1997 regarding the date of . hearing before the Advisory Board and that on the same day he (petitioner-detenu) was informed about the date, time and place and that on receipt of the said information from the Advisory Board, the petitioner detenu was sent to Lucknow at 3.16 p.m. on 24-7-1997. He categorically stated that it is incorrect to say that the permission was communicated to the petitioner in the evening on 14-7-1996. He also stated that the petitioner was asked that if he desires to appear before the Advisory Board with his next friend (non-advocate) he may appear before the Advisory Board with his next friend, but no request was made by the petitioner for the same.

Since the date, time and place of hearing fixed before the Advisory Board was communicated to the petitioner-detenu, he had got opportunity to appear and defend himself and after submission of his representation he had every opportunity until the date of his appearance before the Advisory Board to prepare himself for hearing before the Advisory Board. The said affidavit of Sri Rizvi the Superintendent District Jail, Rampur shows that he (detenu-petitioner) never expressed his desire for appearing with his next friend. Furthermore, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had made a grievance before the Advisory Board that he wanted to arrange a next friend (Non-advocate) to appear with him, but he was not given sufficient opportunity and that may be given opportunity for the same. He had personally participated in the hearing before the Advisory Board and, it is not possible to accept the contention that his detention is vitiated on the ground that he has been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard before the Advisory Board particularly in view of this non-claimer.

Learned counsel for the detenu petitioner has relied on an authority of Supreme Court, Abdul Zabbar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, That was a case under COFEPOSA Act. Moreover since he had not claimed in the present case that benefit despite being informed about that right and did not make any grievance before the Advisory Board, he cannot get any benefit from the observations made in that authority.

Now before we proceed further, it may be proper to place on record the observations of the Apex Court made in the authority U. Vijayalaxmi (Mrs) v. State of Tamil Nadu 1995 SCC (Cri) 176 that in the matter of preventive detention it is not for this Court (Surpeme Court) to probe into the correctness of the alleged facts since this Court (Supreme Court) has a limited role in the matter of examining the validity of the detention order.

While considering the writ petition of the detenu the Surpeme Court or the High Court does not sit in appeal over the detention order, and it is not for the court to go into and assess the probative value of the evidence available to the detaining authority. The High Court cannot enquire into the truth or otherwise of the facts which are mentioned as grounds of detention in the communication to the detenu.

Section 3(2) of the Act empowers the detaining authority to make an order for detention if satisfied in respect of any person that it is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

Then the following observations of the Apex Court in the case Golam Hussain alias Gama Vs. The Commissioner of Police Calcutta and Others, have to be kept in mind :

...The basic imperative of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to the "subjective satisfaction'' component of imprisonment for reasons of internal security.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu that the grounds stated by the detaining authority (in support of the detention order) disclose only a case of law and order and not of public order.

The grounds of detention communicated by the detaining authority to the detenu-petitioner are reproduced below to enable a proper appreciation of the rival contention advanced before us by the parties.

1- ;g fd fnukad 12&6&90 dks oknh Jh x;k yky izHkkjh fujh{kd Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl us ,d izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ Fkkuk ij eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 447@90 /kkjk 147@332@352@336 Hkk- na- fo- 7 f�feuy ykW ,esUMesUV ,sDV ds vUrxZr vafdr djk;h ftlesa fd vki o vkids vU; lkfFk;ksa dks uketn fd;k x;k vkSj muds }kjk vafdr djk;k x;k fd fnukad 11&6&90 dks tc oknh o vU; iqfyl cy dh M;wVh izn''kZuh jkeiqj esa ''kCchj ukbZV esa ''kkfUr O;oLFkk gsrq yxh Fkh rc djhc lk<s X;kjg cts jkr vki o vkids lRrj&vLlh lkfFk;ksa usa izn''kZuh ds xsV ij vkdj tcjnLrh fcuk ikl izos''k fd;k A iqfyl cy }kjk euk djus ij vki o vkids lkfFk;ksa }kjk iqfyl ij iFkjko fd;k x;k A iqfyl us tc cy iz;ksx fd;k rks vki ds }kjk nhokj QkWn dj ukjsckth djrs gq, eap ij p<us dk iz;kl fd;k x;k vkSj iqfyl cy ds gLr{ksi djus ds ckn Hkh vki tcjnLrh eap ij p<+ x;s vkSj feDdh fe;kW ftUnkckn vQjkst vyh ftUnkckn vkfn ds ukjs yxk;s rFkk ogk ij py jgh ''kCchj ukbZV ds dk;Z�e dks tcjnLrh cUn djk fn;k rFkk dgk fd n''kZdksa Hkkx tkvksa dksbZ dk;Z�e ugh gksxk ftlls n''kZd ftuesasa vkSjrsa] iq:"k o cPps Hkh ''kkfey Fks esa HkxnM ep xbZ vkSj vki }kjk o vkids lkfFk;ksa }kjk fd;s x;s iFkjko ls iqfyl cy dks pksaVsa Hkh vk;h A bl izdkj vkius iqfyl dh dk;Z esa tkucw>dj ck/kk igwapk;h A ;g eqdnek vc Hkh vkids fo:) U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A

2- fnukad �ij 3&4&96 dks le; djhc 15&20 cts dqekjh f''kYik lDlsuk iq=h xksiky Lo:i lDlsuk fuoklh ljk; iq[rk Fkkuk dksrokyh jkeiqj dk i= Fkkus ij izkIr gqvk ftlds vk/kkj ij eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 84@95 /kkjk 363@366 Hkk- na- fo- ljdkj cuke Qjgr vkfn iath�r fd;k x;k A bl i= esa dqekjh f''kYik }kjk vafdr fd;k x;k fd og dqN yksxksa ds f''kdUts esa cqjh rjg Qal x;h gS rFkk CySdesy dh tk jgh gS vkSj ?kj ls /kedk dj fnukad 8&2&96 dks cqyk;h tk jgh gS A tks yksx mls ?kj ls ckgj fydyus] CySdesy djus ij etcwj dj jgsa gSa vkSj /kedk jgs gSa cM+sa [krjukd o jktuhfrd izHkko ds yksx gS A mls tkuk rks gksxk ijUrq mls Mj gS fd mls vxok u dj fy;k tk, blfy, ;g i= og fy[k jgh gS vkSj ,d fo''oklik= ds gkFk bl i= dks Hkst jgh gS A mldh xqe''kqnxh ;k ekSr ds i''pkr ;g i= iqfyl dks igqapk ns A tks yksx mls CySdesy dj jgs gSa muesa eq[; O;fDr Qjgr vyh [kk� gS rFkk blds lkFk vQjkt vyh [kk� usrk turk ny] bejku] egQwt] eqjkn] bnjhl] elhg o mldh iRuh gS dqekjh f''kYik lDlsuk dh cjkenxh gksus ds i''pkr mldk c;ku /kkjk 164 na- iz- la- ds vUrxZr djk;k x;k tks mlesa mlus crk;k fd vigj.k ls iwoZ Qjgr vyh [kk� mls rFkk mlds ifjokj dks VsyhQksu ij /kefd;ka fn;k djrk Fkk A fnukad 8&2&96 dks lqUnj yky Ldwy ds ikl tcjnLrh mls dkj esa vxok dj fy;k x;k rFkk Qjgr vyh [kk� vius HkVVs ij mls ys x;k ogka is tkdj mlds lkFk ekjihV djrs gq, fjokYoj fn[kkdj diM+s mrkj dj mldks uXu djds mls QksVks [khaps o mlds lkFk tcjnLrh Qjgr }kjk cykRdkj fd;k x;k o mldh ohfM;ks fQYe cukbZ A mls txg&txg ys tkdj eqYykvksa dks cqykdj /keZ ifjorZu dk iz;kl fd;k x;k rFkk xkS ek�l f[kykdj] ''kjkc fiykdj /keZ Hkz"V fd;k vkSj fudkg djus gsrq mlls lkns dkxn ij gLrk{kj cuok;s A mls nqcbZ Hkstus gsrq dkxth dk;Zokgh dh o [kkyh LVkEi isij ij gLrk{kj cuok;s A mls nqcbZ Hkstus gsrq dkxth dk;Zokgh dh o [kkyh LVkEi isij ij gLrk{kj cuok;s vkSj mlds lkFk yxkrkj /kedk dj ekjihV dj tcjnLrh cykRdkj fd;k tkr jgk A

3- fnukad 9&4&96 dks oknh Jh T;ksfr Lo:i oekZ tks fd dqekjh f''kYik lDlsuk dk rk� gS us Fkkus ij tqckuh lwpuk vafdr djkbZ fd og fnukad 9&4&96 dks �eLr 6-45 cts ''kke cl LVS.M ls vius ?kj tk jgk Fkk rks uxj ikfydk ds lkeus vkius mls jksd fy;k vkSj dgk fd lkys rq esjs fo:) [kwc iSjoh dj jgk gS A viuh HkkbZ o Hkrhth dks le>k ys A ;g dgdj reUpk fudky dj vkius mls Hk;Hkhr fd;k vkSj ,d gokbZ Qk;j Hkh fd;k A

4- fnukad 11&4&96 dks Jh xkSjo lDlsuk tks fd dqekjh f''kYik lDlsuk ds HkkbZ gS us Fkkuk dksrokyh ij tqckuh lwpuk vafdr djkbZ fd fnukad 11&4&96 dks og vius nksLrksa ds lkFk eksgYyk cjknjh egewn [kk� dh rjQ ls vius ?kj tk jgk Fkk rks djhc 17-45 cts tc og beyh crfu;k frjkgs ij vk;k rks ogkW ij igys ls ekStwn vkius mls jksd fy;k o xkfy;kW nsrs gq, dgk fd lkys gks''k esa vk A esjs f[kykQ eqdnesackth cUn djks ugha rks vUtke cqjk gksxk A ;g dgrs gq, vkius vius isUV ls rEkUpk fudkydkj ml ij ekjihV ds fy, vkeknk gq, ftlls ogkW ij HkxnM+ ep xbZ A jkg pyrs yksx b/kj m/kj Hkkx fudys rFkk Hk;Hkhr gq, A

5- ;g fd bl f''kYik izdj.k dks nSfud lekpkj i= vej mtkyk] nSfud tkxj.k o vU; lekpkj i=ksa esa Hkh [kcj izdkf''kr dh xbZ rFkk bl izdj.k dh fuUnk dh xbZ A ;g fd vkids fo:) turk ds fdlh Hkh O;fDr dh xokgh nsus dh fgEer ugha gksrh gS A vkids f�;k dykiksa ls ''kgj ls fgUnq eqfLye ruko dh fLFkfr mRiUu gks jgh gS vkSj xfrfof/k;ksa ls yksd O;oLFkk vLr O;Lr gks jgh gS A

vki bl le; ftyk dkjkxkj jkeiqj essa fopkjk/khu cUnh gS rFkk tekur ij NwVus dk iz;kl dj jgs gSaa A vki fudV Hkfo"; esa ,slk dksbZ dk;Z u djsa ftlls yksd O;oLFkk vLr&O;Lr gks] blfy, vkidks fu:) fd;k tkuk vko'';d le>k x;k A mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa esjk lek/kku gks x;k gS fd vki }kjk fdlh ,slh jhfr ls lEHkkfor dk;Zokgh djus ls jksdus ds mnns''; ls tks yksd O;oLFkk cuk;s j[kus ds izfrdwy gks] ;g vko'';d gS fd vkidks jk"V�h; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e 1980 dh /kkjk 3�2� ds vUrxZr fu:) fd;k tk, A

In the case of Gukim Hussain alias Gama v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (supra) it is stated at page 1343 in para 12 :-

...The nature of the Act, the in circumstances of its commission, the impact on people around and such like factors constitute the pathology of public disorder. We cannot isolate the act from its public setting or analyse its molecules as in a laboratory but take its total effect on the flow of orderly life. It may be a Farhat Khan v. State of U.P. question of the degree and quality of the activity, of the sensitivity of the situation and the psychic response of the involved people. To dissect further is to defeat the purpose of social defence which is the paramount purpose of preventive detention.

In the authority Ram Ranjan Chatterjee Vs. The State of West Bengal, the Apex Court said as follows :

It may be remembered that qualitatively; the acts which affect ''law and order'' are not different from the acts which affect ''public order". Indeed, a state of peace or orderly tranquillity which prevails, as a result of! ''the observance''. or enforcement of internal laws and regulations by the Government is a feature common to the concepts of ''law and order'' and ''public order''. Every kind of disorder or contravention of law affects that orderly tranquillity. The distinction between the areas of ''law and order'' and ''public order'' as pointed by this Court in Arun Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, "is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society." It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinguished from a wide spectrum, of the public, it would raise a problem, of law and order only. These concentric concepts of ''law and order'' and ''public order'' may have a common ''epicentre'', but it is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror-wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps distinguish it as an act affecting ''public order'' form that concerning ''law and order.

Each case revolves upon own facts and on a consideration of facts and circumstances of each case it will have to be determined whether it is a case of mere ''law and order'' or a case of ''public order.'' It is difficult to find a case on all fours with the case in hand. However, it appears useful to refer to two authorities of the Apex Court whose facts have some common features.

In the case of Fitrat Raza Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the order of detention was passed on two grounds which related to two incidents, one of August 13, 1980 and the other of July, 24,1981, i.e. the second incident was after a lapse of about a year but both the incidents showed the propensities of the petitioner to instigate the members of the Muslim community to communal violance and the act on the part of the petitioner squarely fell within the realm of public order, as it was calculated to disturb public peace and tranquillity.

In the case of Smt. Bimla Rani v. Union of India 1989 (26) ACC 589 the grounds of detention in substance were that the petitioner along with his other accomplice gave a gun shot injury to the victim and also threatened to give gun shot to those persons Who came in his rescue and by that act fear and terror was spread in the hearts of public in the markets, Mela Manchandi and in the city of Meerut and the detention purported to be made with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order and public life as he was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to public order and public life. Along with grounds of detention there was a copy of the report of the Inspector Incharge, Police Station, Delhi Gate, Meerut, which was also supplied to the detenu in Jail, and the relevant portion of the report said as follows :

On 30-4-1989 at busy road (Delhi Road) at about 21.12 p.m. he without any reasons gave a gun shot to one Babli, S/o Sh. Bhura, R/o Mohalla Purwa Hamid Nagar who had come for reading Namaz, as a result of which he was seriously injured. At present he is in serious condition in the hospital. This site is the most sensitive area of the city for communal point of view. On receiving the information of the gun injury to Babli by the Muslim community on the pious occasion of Ramzan there spread great excitement. Thousands of people from community gathered. There was an apprehension of communal threat in the city and area. People closed their shops feeling threat of communal riots and the road became quiet due to fear and terror. Above all., on receiving the news of this incident the people famous Mandahandi Mela started running to their homes. This news of fear and terror created due to the incident was also published in the newspaper Amar Ujala on 1-5-1989. Shri. Bura S/o Dilshad R/o 29, Purwa Hamid Hussain got lodged one report in the Police Station, Delhi Gate and a crime case No. 121 of 1989 u/s 307, I.P.C. is pending consideration. Sh. Praveen Kumar is in jail for commission of this offence. Praveen Kumar has given application for bail in the above matter and there is every possibility of his release on bail. He is'' a man of strong means. After release on bail he would again commit such serious act which would be prejudicial to communal harmony and cause adverse reaction in general public especially in Muslim community.

The Apex Court observed as follows :

It is a true that incident on 13-4-1989 was a solitary one so far as the detenu was concerned, but the question is whether the incident had prejudicially affected the public order. In other words, whether it had affected the even tempo of life of the community. As observed in Alijan Mian''s case (supra) it is for the detaining authority to have the subjective satisfaction about the apprehension of the breach of the public order and that even one incident may be sufficient to satisfy the detaining authority in that regard depending upon the nature of the incident. It is not disputed by Mr. Lalit that a single incident may disturb the tranquillity and the even tempo of life of the community.

In the grounds of detention, it has been stated "By your above misdeed, fear and terror was spread in the hearts of public in the markets, Mela Manchandi and in the city of Meerut. Thus you have committed an act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This is not a mere bald statement in support of the same. We have already extracted above the report of the Inspector-in-charge, P.S. Delhi Gate. Meerut, which has been taken into account by the detaining authority, at the time he passed the order of detention. It has been already noticed that a copy of the said report was served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention. A situation that emerged as a result of the incident, as stated in the said report, was grave and serious and prejudicially affected public order. It may be a solitary incident, but it gave rise to communal tension and there was apprehension of a communal riot as alleged in the report. The report, in our opinion, is a sufficient material for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that there was disturbance of tranquillity and harmony of public life.

It is not correct to say that there is no material for the apprehension that if released on bail, the detenu will indulge in such criminal acts affecting public order. Really, the detaining authority, had taken into consideration all the circumstances including the grave and serious situation that emerged as a result of the incident, in our opinion, when an incident was such that it created communal tension and the authorities were apprehensive of the breaking of a communal riot, such incident in itself may be sufficient and may afford justification for the satisfaction of the detaining authority for the detention of the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activity prejudicial to public order....

Firstly, we take up ground No. 1 in the grounds of detention. It related to the incident dated i 2-6-1990 which took place in the Sabbir night in the annual exhibition, Rampur. It was undoubtedly, a problem of public order. The allegations, in the ground were that despite posting of the police force for maintaining the law and order in the said exhibition, the detenu entered in the gate of the exhibition along with his 70-80 companions by force without any pass and on being asked not to do so, the detenue and his companions pelted stones on the police force and when the police used force, the detenue and his companions tried to scale the walls raised slogans and climbed the stage and despite the presence of police force succeeded in climbing on the stage by force and raised slogans and forcibly stopped the Sabbir Night Function which going on and commanded the spectators consisting of men, women and children to run away declaring that no function will be held and that as a consequence of these acts,, the spectators started running helter skelter. It was an act which created panic in the mind so the members of the public in the exhibition. The act took a sinister colour and significance from the circumstances under which and the manner in which these acts were done .The maintenance of public order was obviously affected adversely and this itself was a valid ground for detention.

It has been argued that this ground was a stale one as the detention order was passed much later on 20-6-1996 i.e. about an year after. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on an authority of the Apex Court Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. and Another, wherein the ground No. 1 related to 20-3-1978 and ground No. 2 related to 9-8-1980 while the detention order was passed on 6-5-1983 and by majority view, it was held that it is not open to the detaining 1037 authority either to pick up the old and stale incident and hold it as the basis of an order of detention. In the present case the position is different in as much as the incident dated 12-6-1990 was not dead on the date of the detention order. The detaining authority has clearly mentioned in ground No. 1 that the case about that occurrence was still pending in court against the detenue-petitioner. It has been stated amongst the grounds under the heading ground No. 5 that no member of the public dared to give evidence against him. This is rather the 6 ground though it has not been numbered as such. This ground not only covers the cases at Sl. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 aforesaid but also the case at Sl. No. 1.

It may be stated that ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 do not relate to the holding of public function or meeting but the feature of dare-devilry pervades all through..

Even taking ground No. 1 to be stale and too remote and not proximate to the order of detention, the detention cannot be held vitiated as it could be sustained on the other grounds in the grounds of detention because subsequent to the rendering of the said judgment by the Apex Court, the National Security Act, 1980 has been amended and Section 5A has been introduced which says that the order of detention u/s 3 of the Act which has been made on two or more grounds shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative because one of the grounds is not relevant or not proximately connected with such person on invalid for any other reason whatsoever.

Now we come to ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4. These three grounds are inter connected. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the incidents narrated in these grounds Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were isolated incidents between individuals having no tinge of public order but could only be called cases of law and order cannot be sustained. While the other allegations in ground No. 2 may be said to relate to acts done at private places directed against a private individual namely Km. Shilpa Saxena, her abduction from near a public place Sunder Lal School on 8-2-1996 and being whisked away in a car by force was not an act done in isolation. Any body could realise the impact of such an act on the life of the community and was bound to create a feeling of insecurity amongst the general public, particularly, amongst the members of the community to which the victim girl happened to belong. So the matter affected the maintenance of public order. It is not material that the facts recorded in ground No. 2 do not mention the reaction of the members of the community to which Km. Shilpa Saxena belonged. That was immaterial because the incident contained in ground No. 2 and the incidents contained in ground Nos. 4 and 5 are parts of the same transaction which transaction extended over several months. Ground No. 3 related to an act of wrongful restraint and intimidation done by the detenue petitioner to Jyoti Swaroop Verma (wrongly typed as Sharma in the paper book at page 14) who was paternal uncle of Km. Shilpa Saxena on 9-4-1996, at the road which went from bus stand to his house and the time was 6.45 p.m. He was told that he (Jyoti Swaroop Verma) is doing active pairvi against him (the detenue), and he was commended to restrain Km. Shilpa Saxena and her father and that at that time he was scared by taking out a Tamancha levelling it against him and by making a fire in the air. In respect of this incident, a N.C.R. was recorded at the police station. Then ground No. 4 referred to a similar incident dated 11-4-1996 done by the detenue-petitioner with reference to Gaurab Saxena, brother of Km. Shilpa Saxena. The ground narrated the contents of the F.I.R. lodged by Gaurab Saxena on 11-4-1996 in respect of that incident. It was that on that date Gaurab Saxena was going to his house from the side of Mohalla Baradari Mahmood Khan at about 17-45 hours, that when he came at Imli Bataniya Tirana (trijunction) the detenue-petitioner who was present there from before stopped him and abused him asking him to come to his senses and to stop litigation against him, otherwise, the consequences will be bad and saying this he took out a Tamancha from his pocket and prepared to do Marpit with him as a result of which public started running helter-skelter, the pedestrians ran away here and there frightened. All these averments in ground No. 3 and ground No. 4 were such which indicated that the even tempo of life of the community in the locality where this incident took place was upset and it affected the maintenance of public order. It was not necessary that somebody should have received fire arm injuries or injuries by beating or should have died at the spot in these incidents at public places before these grounds could be called grounds relating to disturbances of public order. It is not open to explain away these grounds by saying that these two N.C.Rs. were lodged by way of Peshbandi to oppose the prayer for bail. In cases of Preventive Detention, the allegations in the grounds have to be taken as such and it is to be seen whether these constitute good and valid ground for Preventive Detention under the National Security Act. Further more, in this case, there is something more in the first part of ground No. 5 and the allegations following it in its second portion. The first part of ground No. 5 was that the incident relating to Km. Shilpa Saxena was published in the daily news papers Amar Ujala, Dainik Jagran and other news papers and the occurrence was condemned and further the second portion of the ground was that by the series of acts of the detenue-petitioner, a state of Hindu Muslim tension has generated and his activities are disturbing the public order. The averments in this ground No. 5 was including the averment that no member of the public dare to give evidence against the detenue-petitioner. All these grounds in ground No. 5 are to be read in conjunction with ground Nos. 2,3 & 4 and from this itself the conclusion will be irresistible that ground Nos. 2 to 5 aforesaid disclose valid grounds for detention (the allegations about the members of public not daring to give evidence against the detenu-petitioner and the creation of Hindu Muslim Tension in the city of Rampur being treated as second part of ground No. 5). A copy of the grounds of detention has been given in the writ petition of the petitioner as Annexure-2. This annexure itself indicated that besides the ground the copies of the cuttings of the relevant daily news papers and other documents which have been taken as a base in the said grounds of detention have been enclosed with the same for his information. There was no grievance made anywhere in the writ petition or in the supplementary affidavit filed from his side taking additional pleas that these documents were not furnished to him along with this grounds of detention. So these documents, particularly the news paper cuttings were an integral part of these grounds of detention and so were to be read along with the contents of the grounds themselves.

The detenu-petitioner did file copies of the F.I.Rs. aforesaid as also copy of the report sent by the police station to the S.P. recommending the detention of the detenu-petitioner and the report of the S.P. dated 26-5-1996 to the collector but he very cunningly abstained from filing copies of the 9 news paper cuttings which were submitted by the police station to the S.P. and which were annexures of the grounds of detention, and as much a part of it as, the grounds of detention themselves. When the, detenu-petitioner has deliberately concealed a substantial and damaging part of the material which constituted the ground of detention against him along with other material that itself makes this writ petition liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has to put the plain facts and not to suppress any of them. The remedy in writ jurisdiction is a discretionary relief and one who does not come with clean hands and withholds material facts from the Court could not get any relief in the writ jurisdiction. The contents of the daily news papers of the locality were relevant material which along with other material impelled the detaining authority to form his opinion that the detenu-petitioner ought to be detained under the National Security Act. The extent to which there was disturbance, and the upsetting in the even tempo of life of the community, the existence of tension between Hindu Muslim communities could be rightly gathered by the detaining authority from these sources as well as from other sources relied upon by him. That there was an incident of abduction and that it created local tension is obvious even from para-7 of the writ petition. It refers to the ground No. 2. The petitioner has set up in the supplementary affidavit of Syed Mashkoor Ahmed in para 19 a marriage between the petitioner and Km. Shilpa Saxena on 6-6-1995. If it were so, then any local tension would have taken place in June, 1995 and not in the year 1996. Ground No. 2 relates to an incident of 1996 subsequent to letter dated 8-2-1996 sent by Km. Shilpa Saxena. If a girl of one community is abducted by a male of another community and communal tension results it is the direct result of his acts and there will be a valid ground for his detention under the N.S.A.

The report of the police to the S. P. Annexure-3 and the report of the S.P, to the District Magistrate, Annexure-4 are also a part of the grounds of detention being the material relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the detention order.

The counter affidavit dated 25-9-1996 of Sri Indrajeet Verma, District Magistrate, Rampur detaining authority may also be referred to here. It said that along with the detention order and the grounds of detention the statement recorded u/s 164, Cr.P.C. of Km. Shilpa Saxena and the news paper cuttings were also supplied to the petitioner, that Km. Shilpa Saxena was kidnapped on 8-2-1996 by the petitioner and his associates that the incident created panic and terror amongst the residents of the locality, specially in the minds of Hindus and it also created communal tension, that the matter was agitated and protest was lodged by the social organisations of the public of the area, that due to the aforesaid activities the public order, peace and tranquillity and even the tempo of the public of the area was adversely affected. This affidavit further said that the letter written by Km. Shilpa Saxena before the date of her kidnapping was received in the office of the S.P. by post after she was kidnapped and the F.I.R. was lodged on 3-4-1996 under Sections 363 and 366, I.P.C. on it and after Km. Shilpa Saxena was recovered, she was produced before the magistrate concerned and her statement was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in which she had narrated the entire story and that after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 366, 376, 342, 313, 504, 511 and 120-B, I.P.C. a copy of the statement u/s 164, Cr. P.C. given by Km. Shilpa Saxena was also annexed to the grounds of detention and served on the detenue-petitioner. In view of the discussion, it is found that the ground Nos. 2 to 5 aforesaid were valid ground for detaining the detenue petitioner u/s 3 of the National Security Act to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

An argument has been made before us that there has been delay in passing the detention order even in respect of ground Nos. 2,3 &4. We have referred earlier to the case of Kamlakar Prasad Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. but there is subsequent authority of the apex Court M. Ahamedkutty Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, The State submitted that thorough investigation of the case was required for the proceedings under the Customs Act and for prosecution in the criminal Court (that was a case under the COFEPOSA). It was held that where the seemingly long time taken for passing the detention order after the prejudicial act is the result of full and detailed investigation and consideration of the facts of the case, the grounds cannot be held to be remote and the detention cannot be held to be bad on that ground. It was further observed in this authority; "As was held in Rekhaben Virendra Kapadia v. State of Gujarat whether the time lag between the commission of the offence and the detention was enough to snap the reasonable nexus between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention would depend upon the facts of each case. The test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical calender test to be blindly applied by merely counting the number of months and days between the offending act and the order of detention. The question is whether the past activities of the detenue were such that the detaining authority could reasonably come to the conclusion that the detenu was likely to continue in his unlawful activities."

The detaining authority here Mr. Indra Jeet Verma in his supplementary counter affidavit dated 11-2-1997 stated in para-7 that after doing investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted but the petitioner was absconding and as such, by the orders of the Court concerned, the proceedings were initiated under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the petitioner surrendered before the C. J.M. Rampur on 22-5-1996 and, in pursuance of the order of the magistrate concerned, the petitioner was sent to jail. He further stated in para-11 of his affidavit that when the letter written by Km. Shilpa Saxena dated 8-2-1996 was received by post in the office of the S. P. Rampur, order was passed on 11-3-1996 to make an inquiry and in compliance of the direction of S, P, the inspector Kotwali inquired into the matter and thereafter registered a case on 3-4-1996, that regarding delay in inquiry and registration of the case suitable action was taken against the then inspector Kotwali, Rampur.

Evidence is collected during investigation. Under the circumstances of this case if the detaining authority passed the detention order on the date 20-6-1996, it cannot be said that an unreasonably long period has elapsed between the dates of the incident and the delay in passing the detention order will not by itself vitiate the detention order when such order is passed after detailed investigation and consideration of facts (see the case of M. Aharned Kutty). In this case the detenu-petitioner has himself placed on record a copy of the order dated 26-4-1996 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1632 of 1996, wherein it was ordered that untill further orders or till submission of charge-sheet whichever is earliest, the arrest of the petitioner in Case Crime No. 84 of 1996, under Sections 366/363, I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District Rampur shall remain stayed. The order also said that the investigation may, however, go on and be concluded in accordance with law. In view of this order, it was necessary and proper for the detaining authority to await the submission of the charge-sheet. So the detention order cannot be held to be vitiated on this score. .

Much argument has been advanced from the side of the detenu-petitioner that the detaining authority has not considered the material which could have changed his mind. The defence version of love between the petitioner and the victim Km. Shilpa Saxena and the marriage in accordance with Hindu rites as far back as on 7-6-1995 has been set up. This was something to be considered during the investigation. A reference was also made to the medical reports about Km. Shilpa Saxena. The power of Preventive Detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of Preventive Detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It is not a parallel proceedings which does not overlapped the prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of Preventive Detention may be made before or during or even after investigation. As noted earlier the basic imperative of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to the subjective satisfaction component of imprisonment for reasons of internal security. In the present case, it is too obvious that in the face of the letter of the victim dt. 8-2-1996, her statement u/s 164, Cr.P.C. narrating all the material facts about her abduction and the subsequent events till the date of her recovery. A copy of the statement is annexed along with the grounds of detention and furnished to the detenu-petitioner which excludes the possibility of the story of love affair and marriage swaying the mind of the detaining authority and leading him to abstain from passing the order of detention. As noted earlier, the detaining authority was to exercise his discretion in passing the detention order in the light of the surrounding facts making his subjective satisfaction on the available material whether the detenu-petitioner had acted in a manner causing the disturbances in the public order, and his detention is necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. So the non-consideration of the material set out from the side of the detenu-petitioner would be immaterial in this case and the detention order would be perfectly valid in the present case.

The learned counsel for the detenu-petitioner has relied on the authority M. Ahamed Kutty (supra) where the detention was held illegal on the ground that material documents and facts have not brought to the notice of the detaining authority. That was a case under the COFEPOSA Act, In that case the detenu-petition was intercepted at an air port and produced before the C.J.M. who granted him bail on condition inter alia that he would report before the Superintendent (Intelligence and Customs) Trivendram on every Wednesday until1 further orders and that he would not change his residence without prior permission of Court and there the detention order was held invalid because his bail application, bail order etc. were not placed before the detaining authority.

The question whether the non-placing of certain documents and materials before the detaining authority would vitiate the order of detention passed by him, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, we have already noted the factual position wherein a Division Bench of this Court had stayed the arrest of the petitioner during the investigation and it was after the submission of the charge-sheet the detaining authority had passed the detention order. It has also come on record that later on bail order was passed by the Bench of this Court on 19-6-1996. (The bail application number has not been disclosed anywhere) directing the release of the detenu-petitioner on furnishing sureties and imposition of condition of reporting his presence every fortnight before the C. J. M. concerned. In my view, the non-consideration of the contents of the bail application and the non supply of a copy thereof to the detenue-petitioner would not vitiate the detention order, in view of the foregoing discussion of the facts and circumstances of this case. It has come in the counter affidavit of the detaining authority Indrajeet Verma dated 11-2-1997 that on 20-6-1996 till the detention order was signed by him, there was no information regarding the order dated 19-6-1996 (aforesaid) of the High Court. He further stated in his affidavit that this fact was in his notice that the bail application has been filed and the pairvi was being done on behalf of the petitioner to get him released on bail. So the detention order cannot be held vitiated in this case on the ground that the contents of the bail application of the detenue-petitioner and the order of the High Court thereon were not placed before him. I may mention here that it was held in the case of Madan Lal Anand Vs. Union of India and others, that, "Documents having bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority but not relied upon by him must be placed before him at the time of passing of the detention order. But if the documents are such that even in their absence subjective satisfaction would not be affected, then failure to place the documents before the detaining authority would be immaterial." In the present case, the failure to place this material was immaterial and so did not vitiate the detention order.

The question of passing the detention order in respect of a person already in jail is not free from difficulty. In the authority Kamarunnissa v. Union of India 1991 (1)Cri 131, it was stated by the apex Court that the detention orders can validly be, passed against the detenues who are in jail provided the officer passing the order is alive to the fact of the detenue being in custody and there is material on record to justify his conclusion that they would indulge in similar activity if set at liberty. It was further said that the concerned authority must satisfy himself and that that satisfaction must be reached on the basis of cogent material and there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and further if released on bail, the material on record reveals that he will indulge in prejudicial activity if not detained. The apex Court ruled that even in a case where a person is in custody, if the facts and circumstances so demand resort can be had to the law of preventive detention.

In a subsequent authority, Birendra Kumar Rai alias Virendra Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the apex Court said about the case before it that the detaining authority was aware that a bail application has already been filed by the petitioner and the same was to come up for hearing on 7-12-1990 and in these circumstances the detaining authority was justified in recording the satisfaction compelling the necessity of issuing the detention order as it could not have been predicted with certainty that the petitioner would not be released on bail. In that case, the prosecution counsel pointed out to the apex Court that the bail has been granted in favour of the petitioner and that this proved the correctness and legitimacy of the satisfaction of the detaining authority in this regard. In the present case also, the bail order has been passed on the bail application in favour of the petitioner and in these circumstances, in this case the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was proved right.

In the authority Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu 1994 SCC (Crl) 482, the apex Court observed as follows;

From the catena of decision of this Court, it is clear that even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can validly be passed if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody. If he has reason to believe on the basis of the reliable material that there is a possibility of his being released on bail and that on being so released the detenu would in all probabilities indulge in prejudicial activities and if the authority passes an order after recording his satisfaction the same cannot be struck down.

In the present case, the conduct of the detenu petitioner showed that he was making all efforts to keep away from being arrested and jailed in the abduction case. We have noted above about the writ petition moved by him in which he succeeded in obtaining a stay of arrest till the date of submission of the charge-sheet and after submission of the charge-sheet, though he surrendered himself, he moved for bail and after his bail application has been rejected by the Session Court, he went ahead and knocked the door of the High Court and moved the bail application there. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Rampur.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the authority Surya Prakash Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein, in the absence of cogent material to show that the detenu, already in jail, may again indulge in serious offences causing threat to public order, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in a case of solitary murder was discorded as not justified. In the present case, the facts are different. The prosecution is pending in respect of the abduction and the subsequent doings of the petitioner with reference to Km. Shilpa Saxena and in case the detenu-petitioner came out from jail on the basis of the bail order aforesaid, the detaining authority had a legitimate ground to believe that he may again indulge in activity with relation to the said girl, that may again cause disturbance of the public order.

In view of the above discussion, the detention order is upheld and the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.