CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Nizamuddin vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 31 January 2002 · Citation: (2002) CriLJ 2065

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Singh, J · M. Katju, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 31480 of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 359 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel Sri J. Lal has appeared for the Union of India.

2.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 15-6-2001 passed under the National Security Act. Several points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner but we are of the opinion that the very first point is sufficient to allow this petition.

3.

The grounds of detention alleged that on 25-5-2001 at about 10.15 a.m. the petitioner and some of his associates who are Muslims attacked one Banwari Giri who is a Hindu with lathis and dandas. One Ram Sahai tried to intervene and he was shot dead by a pistol and this created terror in the area. In our opinion, this is a clear case of law and order and not of public order. No doubt the petitioner and his associates can be proceeded against under the ordinary criminal law but we are of the opinion that it is not a case of public order and hence the detention order is invalid vide Mrs. T. Devaki Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, Mustak miya Jabbar Miya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta 1995 SCC 454 and Smt. Tarannum Vs. Union of India and Others,

4.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was a case of public order because the incident created communal tension. We do not agree with this submission. Merely because the assailants were Muslims and the victims were Hinduthus this does not mean that it was a communal incident. There was no mention that the petitioner and his associates were shouting that the Hindus should be killed or that there were clashes between the Hindus and Muslims. The mere bald allegation that the assailants created terror in the locality in our opinion was only to give colour to be the case to create an impression that it was a case of public order.

5.

For the reasons given above this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 15-6-2001 is quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless required in any other criminal or preventive detention case against the petitioner.