- (1.)THIS Habeas Corpus writ petition is directed against the detention order dated 4. 5. 2007 passed by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Respondent No. 3. A further prayer has been made for setting the petitioner at large. THE FACTS :
(2.)THE brief facts relevant for the decision of this case are that an inci-dent had taken place on 28. 9. 2006 regarding which an F. I. R. was lodged at police station Bhojpur, district Ghaziabad under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 324 IPC. In pursuance of the said FIR the petitioner was arrested on 30. 9. 2006. Then on 4. 5. 2007 the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate primarily, on the ground that on 28. 9. 2006 at about 7. 00 p. m. the petitioner and six other persons reached the vicinity of Jama Masjid in 'quasba' Farid Nagar which has a population of 20,000. The petitioner and his six other accomplice who were having lethal weapon which included knives, sword and country made pistol, attacked one Raisuddin. The incident had taken place in a public place where the vegetable market (Sabzi mandi) was situated. The said Raisuddin received sword injuries because of which his neck was half cut and he was also attacked in the stomach because of which his guts had come out. It has also been stated in the impugned order that when the wife, uncle and sons of said Raisuddin reached the spot, they were also attacked by the petitioner and his accomplice, and were also seriously injured. As a consequence of the injuries sustained by him, said Raisuddin died on the spot and thereafter the petitioner and other six persons left the spot displaying their weapons and making an announcement that if anyone tries to confront them, he would also meet the same fate. As a consequence of the said incident, there was commotion in the entire area. The vegetable market was close down, the milk vendors were terrorized and they left their milk container and the public order was disturbed in the area. Because of the terror of the petitioner and his men, nobody reported the incident at the police station which was situated only 3 kms. away from the place of the incident. However, 45 minutes later, information was given to the police station by an unknown person on phone and then the police came into action. A first information report was lodged.
(3.)IN the order of detention it has also been stated that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the Sessions Court and thereafter the petitioner had filed a bail application before the High Court in which the comments, along with case diary, had been sent to the High Court. The District Magistrate has further recorded that there was a reasonable apprehension of the petitioner repeating such incident which would disturb the public order and as such for preventing any such repetition, the passing of the detention order was necessary. Challenging the aforesaid detention order this Habeas Corpus writ petition has been filed.