Brij Nandan vs District Magistrate and Others

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of detention dated 26.9.2001, passed under the National Security Act.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that it is alleged therein that on 8.6.2001, the Petitioner with his brother and associates came with guns and shot one Santosh Kumar on his chest due to which he fell down and died. This created terror and panic in the locality and people shut their houses and a case u/s 302, Indian Penal Code was registered. The said incident occurred in a congested locality, which created terror in the public, and public order was disturbed.

It is also alleged that on 3.5.2000, the Petitioner shot at one Ramji when he had come to appear before the Court and a case u/s 307, Indian Penal Code was registered against him. On 14.5.1998 the Petitioner had given shelter to some anti-social elements who had guns, and when the police party arrived at the spot, the Petitioner and his four associates fired at the police. The police had recovered the Petitioner''s rifle. A case u/s 307, Indian Penal Code has also been registered in this connection. On 28.5.1997 at 3.35 p.m. the Petitioner and his associates shot dead one Shyam Sharma and a case u/s 302/307, Indian Penal Code has been registered in this connection. On 23.7.1997 at 7.15 p.m., the Petitioner attempted to kill one Yugal Kishore and Maharaj Singh and a case u/s 307, Indian Penal Code had been registered. Petitioner''s gun licence was cancelled but he has not deposited his gun due to which a case u/s 25/30 Arms Act has been registered.

Thus, it is alleged that Petitioner has committed several crimes and he is trying to obtain bail. It is also alleged that Petitioner is getting gunda tax collected from the people in the locality. He has threatened the villagers that if anybody gave evidence against him the people will be burnt and will be killed. Hence, the District Magistrate was satisfied that Petitioner''s activities are pre-judicial to public order.

We are satisfied that the Petitioner has disturbed public order and not merely law and order. The large number of serious cases against the Petitioner show that he is a hardened criminal, and creates terror in the public.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then submitted that the Petitioner was in jail since 15.6.2001 and his bail application has been rejected by the Court of Sessions on 26.7.2001 as stated in paragraph 21 of the petition. Hence, it is alleged that the detention order is illegal.

In our judgment in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 38005 of 2001, Karesh Pal alias Billu v. District Magistrate decided on 25.4.2002, we have discussed this aspect of the matter and have held that even if a person is in jail, a detention order can be passed. We have relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ahmad Nassar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2000 (1) JIC (SC) 221, for the proposition that a valid detention can be passed even when the detenu has not applied for bail.

For the reasons given above, there is no force in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.