MASROOR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
LAWS(ALL)-1984-5-6
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 22,1984

MASROOR Appellant
VERSUS
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)MASROOR alias Kalia who has been detained Under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by order of District Magistrate, Moradabad of 27. 8. 83, has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the said order. The brief facts appearing from the application, affidavit of the petitioner and the counter affidavits of Shri Vijai Sharma, District Magistrate, Moradabad and Shri Jagdish Narain Yadav, U. D. A. Confidential Section VI, U. P. Secretariat Lucknow are as follows: On 7. 7. 83, S. O. P. S. Majhola, District Moradabad through S. S. P. Moradabad submitted a report to the District Magistrate to the effect that in the night of 28. 5. 83 within P. S. Mundha Pande, Government Roadways Bus was looted by armed dacoits. Similarly in the night of 12. 6. 83 another U. P. Roadways bus was looted within P. S. Majhola by the armed dacoits. F. I. Rs. of both the incidents were lodged at the police stations concerned, copies of which were submitted along with the said report. The said F. I. Rs. did not mention the names of the dacoits. It was mentioned in the said report that the abovementioned highway robberies had created a feeling of fear and terror in the minds of the public and they were hesitant to travel in the said buses even during daytime and that the said activities of the dacoits were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
(2.)IT was further reported that on 15. 6. 83 accused Kaisal Malik was arrested in connection with the said dacoities. His interrogation revealed the complicity of seven other persons including the petitioner in the said dacoities. This resulted in the arrest of the petitioner on 3. 7. 83.
(3.)THE said report of the S. O. was sent by the S. S. P. , Moradabad to the District Magistrate Moradabad recommending detention of the petitioner under the Act, mentioning that the petitioner was in jail. The District Magistrate did not feel the necessity of passing the detention order, inasmuch as the petitioner was confined in jail and was not in a position to indulge in similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Nonetheless he received a report through S. D. Majhola dated 25. 8. 83 that the said S. O. had received information through an informer that bail application of Masroor petitioner will be moved when the District Magistrate will be out of District headquarters so that after getting the bail the detention order may not be served on the petitioner. Feeling satisfied that the petitioner could succeed in getting the bail the District Magistrate on 27. 8. 83 passed the impugned detention order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.