Rajvanshi Yadav vs State of U.P. and Others

G.S.N. Tripathi and N.S. Gupta, JJ.—By virtue of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed as follows :

(1) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the Respondents to produce the Petitioner before this Court and to set him at liberty and also to quash the detention order dated 1.5.97 passed against him ;

(2) To issue any other, writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ;

(3) To award costs of this petition to the Petitioner.

The detention order along with the grounds is dated 1.5.97 under the provisions of National Security Act (N.S.A.). The main allegations are that on 1.3.97 at 4 p.m. in the Panchayat Bhawan premises at Rampur, the accused along with his companions in an open place, i.e., in the said office, had with an intention to murder Sri R. C. Singh, Chief Development Officer, Rampur fired at him. Thereafter the Petitioner tried to escape. But he was overpowered yet escaped. An atmosphere of terror was created and the villagers who had assembled for getting some reliefs in the office of the Chief Development Officer, ran away from the spot. Thus the public order was totally disturbed. The people of the locality were extremely afraid. The companion of the Petitioner escaped. A report to that effect was lodged on 1.3.97 at 4.30 p.m. and a case u/s 307/506, I.P.C. was registered against the Petitioner. In the local newspaper like Dainik Jagran, the news was published and this act of audicity committed by the Petitioner was widely spread and published. Nay, the D.R.D. Employees'' Association, Rampur gave a memorandum to the District Magistrate, Rampur and the S.S.P., Rampur to the effect that the employees of the office are feeling totally insecured after this incident and the act of the Petitioner was contemned in forceful talks. They sought the early incarceration of the Petitioner and his companion.

The Petitioner was taken into custody on 2.3.97 and ever since he is lodged in Jail and is continuously trying for getting bail, although the C.J.M. as well as the Sessions Judge had rejected his bail application on 9.4.97. The application for bail was moved before the High Court Allahabad, which is pending consideration. It is likely that he might be bailed out by the High Court and after coming out from Jail, he shall repeat the same type of activities by creating terror in the mind of the local people specially the employees attached to the office. This way the public order shall be totally disturbed and the District Magistrate was personally satisfied that a situation has arisen which warrants the continued imprisonment of the accused. Hence the detention order (Annexure-1 to the petition), was passed under the provisions of N.S.A.

The Petitioner, in this petition has alleged that in fact, the Petitioner is a victim of Sri R. C. Singh, the Chief Development Officer, Rampur who had been treating the Petitioner with extreme cruelty and he was threatening him (Petitioner) off and on, and in fact, on 1.3.97, the Petitioner became the victim of his firing and lodged a report but no action has been taken against R. C. Singh. Therefore, a petition u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. was filed by the Petitioner as he had received grievous injuries and he was at the verge of death. Sri R. C. Singh has specially named him as an accused u/s 307, I.P.C., whereas Sri Singh has received no injury at all. Cause of anger of R. C. Singh towards the Petitioner was that he was highlighting the various misconducts and charges of corruption against Sri R. C. Singh. A series of complaints had been sent by the Petitioner in the years 1994 and 1995. Allegedly on an enquiry held by the District Magistrate, Rampur, some charges have been made out against Sri R. C. Singh. Thus Sri R. C. Singh was very angry against the Petitioner and lodged a false F.I.R. resulting into illegal detention of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a good sportsman and has been rewarded by the higher authority and the detention of the Petitioner is totally unlawful.

The main grounds of attack levelled by the Petitioner are that the report, which has constituted the basis of the order of detention is itself wrong. It is not a case of public order. At the most, it can be said to be a case of law and order. The Petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman and also a physical Instructor w.e.f. 1.9.97. The Petitioner was not provided personal hearing by the State Government, which was violated the principles of natural justice.

The opposite party, namely the District Magistrate Km. Leena Nandan has mentioned in her counter-affidavit that she had passed the detention order after perusing the entire evidence and material made available to her by the police authorities of the district and she was fully satisfied that a case has been made out against the Petitioner for detention. The case launched by the Petitioner against Sri. R. C. Singh has resulted in filing of a final report dated 15.4.97 and the cross-version of the Petitioner has been found false. It is wrong to say that the opposite party did not apply her mind. No case of prejudice has been made out as alleged by the Petitioner. The representation of the Petitioner was sent by the Jail authorities, which was received by her on 18.5.97 and she sent the same to the State authority along with her comments and documents on 20.5.97 The comments were sent before the Advisory Board on 19.5.1997 along with the copy of the representation and the same were sent directly to the Central Government on 23.5.1997. The detention of the Petitioner has been approved by the State Government on 9.5.97. This fact has been communicated to the Petitioner. The order was finally made absolute by the State Government on 23.6.97 for detaining the Petitioner for a period of one year. The Petitioner was permitted to appear before the Advisory Board on 4.6.97 and make submissions. But the Advisory Board did not agree with the contentions raised by the Petitioner.

The State Government through Sri Gopal Dutt, Upper Division Assistant in Confidential Section 7, U. P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow has alleged that without delay the Petitioner''s representation was considered and final orders were passed. A communication was similarly sent to the Government of India, which was received on 24.5.97. The Central Government did not disagree with the State Government as there was no delay on its part to consider the representation of the Petitioner at any stage.

The only point raised before us by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that this is not a case of public order, rather, it is a case of law and order. We do not agree.

Without going into the reality of facts, as alleged by the Petitioner and without going into the correctness of the same, on merit which we do not touch it is clear that these facts are not disputed that a F.I.R. was lodged by Sri. R. C. Singh, a senior officer at the district level that while he was discharging his public responsibility at a public place in his office, the Petitioner along with his companion fired upon him from a very close range. It was a murderous assault on his part. The public at large were terrorised and ran away from the office. The normal public function of the office as well as markets was completely disturbed and an atmosphere of terror had spread amongst all.

The Petitioner, on the other hand, says that he was himself a victim of attack at the hands of Sri R. C. Singh and he also lodged a report with the police and perused the matter u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. It means that the incident took place in the office of Sri R. C. Singh on the same date, i.e., 1.3.97. The act of the allegedly fired at his officer Sri R. C. Singh at a public place. This act of the Petitioners per se shows how hard-hearted and hardened criminal minded the Petitioner was that he chose a public place in a broad-daylight and in the office of Sri R. C. Singh, his senior officer and he fired from his pistol from a very close range, upon him. He did his best to kill Sri R. C. Singh. But as the God is greater than human being, the programme of the accused failed.

As we are not sitting as a trial court over this matter and the legal liability of the Petitioner shall be determined by the competent civil/criminal courts, we have to see only if after believing the F.I.R. lodged by Sri R. C. Singh, to be correct, a situation arose as consequence of the act of the Petitioner, in which such an offence was committed by the accused and his companion in a broad-day-light in presence of hundreds of people assembled in the office for their own purposes and for getting redressal of their grievances.

Sri K. K. Arora, learned senior counsel with his usual thoroughness argued the case with unparalleled advocacy and matchless forensic depth and stated that if we believe the contention raised in the F.I.R. lodged by Sri R. C. Singh, a case of public order is made out. However, he said that in fact, no such incident took place. In fact, the Petitioner himself was a victim of attack at the hands of Sri R. C. Singh.

As observed earlier, as we are not sitting as a trial court, we cannot pass any opinion regarding the correctness of otherwise of the contention raised by Sri Arora. We have to proceed with the assumption that the allegations are correct side by side we will also note summarily that the Petitioner also filed the F.I.R., which, after normal investigation, resulted into submission of a final report, which has been accepted by the Court. Not only this, the Petitioner has also filed a petition u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. We are also not going to pass any order regarding the correctness or otherwise as stated above, but one thing is clear that the incident of such type took place at a public place in a broad-day-light. Its impact on the general public is bound to be tremendous.

The Petitioner is posted as a subordinate employee in the office of Sri R. C. Singh, then Chief Development Officer. The very fact that he mustered courage to attack Sri Singh as such a protected place like his public office per se indicates that it is a case of public order, which was naturally disturbed. The persons, who had assembled in the office for redressal of their grievances were terrorised by the act committed by the Petitioner and they ran away from the spot, meaning thereby that they realised that the Petitioner could do anything he liked, including he could make a murderous assault upon Sri Singh, his senior officer. He had fired upon him. He had fear of none and had become a daredevil. The consequence is that a sense of fear did breed in the mind of the public. They would have been certainly thinking that if the man (Petitioner) could do such a bold act in broad-day-light and against his own superior officer Sri R. C. Singh, they might also to suffer similar ouslaught. So he was naturally capable of causing any harm to any other person, who was placed lower in the strata of public. This is something which is very bad ipso facto and must be condemned. So we are satisfied after perusal of the documents and materials, that the District Magistrate passed the impugned order, which does not suffer from the vice of favouritism, bias or influence of Sri R. C. Singh. Nay, a person sitting in the chair of the District Magistrate shall certainly take a serious note of it that such an offence has been committed and the F.I.R. was lodged against a person, who happens to be an employee of the State Government and working under the same officer. This is something very obnoxious and cannot be thought of. Nay such action cannot be treated with a sense of moderation. Rather it deserves to be condemned extremely. Hence after applying her mind and perusal of entire evidence and circumstances on the record, which was placed before her, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order of detention. We make it clear that it is certainly a case of public order and not a mere case of law and order. The impact of such a crime is bound to be very grave and the District Magistrate has drawn a proper conclusion from there.

No other point has been raised before us.

The petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed.