# Jane Alam (Corpus) v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1751
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-16
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 919 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jane-alam-corpus-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54716
- **Pages:** 21

## Text

_Characters 0–39,820 of 74,785. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39820 for what follows._

4 All. Jane Alam (Corpus) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1751
(2026) 4 ILRA 1751
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 919 of 2025

Jane Alam (Corpus) ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind, making the detention order mechanically and
arbitrarily on the recommendation of the Sponsoring Authority and the grounds of detention are not proper
and the detention is based on speculation; not reality and whether offences attributed to the petitioner are
such that these would constitute no more than violation of the law and order

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 (Habeas Corpus); The National Security Act, 1980-
Section 3(3)- Petitioner was found indulging in a particular kind of offence that spontaneously
arouses religious passions amongst a large section of the community, inciting them to indulge in
violence, with the imminent likelihood of vitiation of public order in the locale. They have
slaughtered a cow, which, like always, led to frayed tempers and violent emotions displayed by
members of the public, agitating and blockading the road, and throwing life out of gear in the
locale. It is not a case, where for a simple violation of law and order, an irrelevant consideration,
like past instances of violations of law and order were taken into consideration by the Detaining
Authority to infer that the detenue, if released on bail, would indulge in similar acts, that would
lead to public order being prejudicially affected.

In case of preventive detention, while irrelevant material cannot be taken into consideration,
such as mere criminal history of the detenue, indulging in acts of violation of law and order in
the past, the law of evidence to connect the offender to the crime, would not be attracted-
Correctness of the allegations in a preventive detention matter is not up for a scrutiny before the
Court, doing a judicial review of the Administrator's decision to preventively detain.

Held- No infirmity in the order impugned, ordering the petitioner's detention under the NSA.
Petition dismissed. (E-15)
(Para 38, 41, 42 & 52)

Case Law Cited
Annu @ Aniket v. Union of India and others, 2025 (4) GLT 39; Sameer and another v. State of U.P. and
others, 2026:AHC:83732-DB

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The National Security Act, 1980

List of Keywords
1752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Habeas Corpus; Section 3(3); NSA; Correctness of the allegations in a preventive detention; Not up for a
scrutiny before the Court, doing a judicial review; Mere criminal history of the detenue, Indulging in acts of
violation of law and order in the past; Irrelevant in case of preventive detention

Case Arising From
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been instituted by Jane Alam, seeking the issue of a rule nisi, ordering
the respondents to produce him before the Court and set him at liberty, confirming the rule. The petitioner
has been detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, by the District Magistrate, Shamli,
vide order dated 26.05.2025, which has been confirmed by the State Government on 04.06.2025 and the
Uttar Pradesh Advisory Board, Lucknow on 09.07.2025. After receipt of the Advisory Board's report, State
Government has enlarged the duration of the detention to twelve months vide order dated 29.07.2025

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner : Mohd. Naushad, Noor Ahmed
Counsel for Respondents : A.S.G.I., G.A., Manish Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been instituted by Jane Alam, seeking the issue
of a rule nisi, ordering the respondents to produce him before the Court and set him at liberty,
confirming the rule. The petitioner has been detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security
Act, 1980, by the District Magistrate, Shamli, vide order dated 26.05.2025, which has been
confirmed by the State Government on 04.06.2025 and the Uttar Pradesh Advisory Board,
Lucknow on 09.07.2025. After receipt of the Advisory Board's report, State Government has
enlarged the duration of the detention to twelve months vide order dated 29.07.2025.

2. The facts, giving rise to this petition, would show that it all began with a police party,
headed by Sub-Inspector Gyanendra Singh on routine duty to maintain law and order and effective
service of processes etc. while passing through the jungle in Village Lavvadaudpur, Police Station
Jhinjhana, District Shamli, coming across the remains of cows progeny, lying in the field of one
Sandeep son of Aval Singh on 15.03.2025, soon after 10.10 a.m. The police party, who came across
the remains of cows' progeny, found 11 dismembered feet, four tails, parts of the head, besides
parts of skin and a wooden block. The police team called Veterinary Medical Officer, Dr. Imran
Ansari over his mobile phone to identify the remains. The Veterinary Medical Officer reached the
spot and identified the remains as ones of the cows' progeny, regarding which he said he would
make a separate report. The police team in the FIR, that they got registered with P.S. Jhinjhana,
said that the remains were found at the specified location, and that some unknown men had
slaughtered the cows progeny, on the basis of which Crime No. 99 of 2025, under Section 3/8 of
the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955'), P.S.
Jhinjhana, District Shamli, was registered. It was also recorded in the FIR that the remains were
secured by the Police and upon directions of the Veterinary Medical Officer, in order to prevent
foul stench, besides disease from spreading, interred the same, after digging up earth. The wooden
block was marked and taken into custody.

3. It is next said in the FIR that Holi was around and the incident had led to unrest amongst
the Hindu population, necessitating detailing of force to maintain peace. It was also said in the FIR
that a memo of recovery was prepared on the spot and signed by members of the police party. In
4 All. Jane Alam (Corpus) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1753
fact, it is the aforesaid memo, relating to recovery of remains of the cows progeny, that was
registered as the check FIR, giving rise to the crime.

4. The grounds, upon which the impugned detention is founded, are indeed detailed and
recount all happenings and circumstances, leading to the petitioner's incarceration. Since other men
were involved in the crime, that led to the petitioner's detention, and they too were similarly
detained, the grounds carry reference to those others as well. Therefore, it may not be relevant for
us to refer to the entire gamut of facts that the grounds carry. We propose to refer to only so much
of whatever is said in the grounds as is relevant to the petitioner's detention under the National
Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the NSA'). After a copious reference to the discovery of the offence
by the police team and whatever is said in the FIR, it is mentioned in the grounds that post
registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer left for the place of occurrence, and upon
reaching there, saw that at the field of Sandeep Kumar located in the jungle of Village
Lavvadaudpur, a big crowd of people had congregated. Amongst them, members of the Hindu
populace had frayed tempers, who were reasoned with and pacified.

5. The Investigating Officer then set about the task of finding out the identity and location
of the offenders. The police informers were summoned for the purpose and necessary instructions
issued to them. The Station House Officer, P.S. Jhinjhana, upon learning of this happening, reached
the spot, accompanied by members of his companion force. The S.H.O. again found a big crowd
gathered at the place of occurrence and they were livid about the incident of cow slaughter. The
crowd, that had now gathered, had representatives of various associations present, including Hindu
organizations, such as the Rashtriya Bajrang Dal, the Pashchimi Uttar Pradesh Sanyukt Udyog
Vyapar Mandal, the Shiv Sena Mandal Saharanpur Unit, the Akhil Bharatiya Pradhan Sangthan.
Members of these organizations were shouting slogans and demanding the immediate arrest of the
offenders responsible for the crime. This crowd blockaded the Jhinjhana Thana Bhawan Road,
leading to a long queue of vehicles on both sides of the blockade. The passersby and the travellers
were much troubled. This jamming of the road on account of the blockade lasted for long hours, in
consequence of which public order in the area was torn asunder.

6. Upon receiving information, the Circle Officer, Kairana, also reached the spot/ place of
occurrence, along with members of his companion force and attempted to pacify the enraged
members of the crowd. In the meanwhile, information of this incident was relayed to the nearby
police stations and additional forces from those stations, such as Thana Bhawan, Garhi Pukhta,
Thana Babri, arrived. They were detailed around the place of occurrence and the enangered
villagers were assured about their own safety and that of their cattle. Police force had to camp at
villages Naya Gaon, Dathaida, Gangarampur Khedki, Lavvadaudpur, Shamli-Shamla, Panthupura,
Jijaula, Ballamajra, Toda, Khodsama and Laxmipura. The Police maintained surveillance in these
villages, in order to ensure that the disturbed public order resulting from this incident could be
restored.

7. The Investigating Officer on the 16th of March, 2025 learnt through a police informer
that five men were involved in this incident of cow slaughter. They were Iqbal son of Rashid, Jaane
Alam son of Sagir (the petitioner), Javed son of Islam, Wasim alias Gullu son of Salim, and Sameer
son of Shamshad. All of them had together, according to the informer, committed the offence. By
1754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and by, the investigation proceeded and raids were made by the Police to interrogate men, whose
names had surfaced in connection with the crime.

8. For a first, the Police went to the homes of Iqbal and Jaane Alam, one after the other,
looking out for them, but they were not there. The relatives did not give any clue as to their
whereabouts. Next, the Police went to Javed's house, but he too was not found at home. His
relatives did not give any information as to his whereabouts. On 16.03.2025, upon an the informer's
tip off that the offenders, responsible for the incident of cow slaughter, would be proceeding from
Chausana to Mundet Khadar, carrying illicit weapons on them, and that they could be caught if a
checking exercise was strictly undertaken, the Police went to the place of their reported movement.
To shorten the narration of events, three of the men, said to be involved in the incident, were seen
riding a motorcycle, and upon being challenged to stop, attempted to escape, accelerating the
vehicle. They then turned aggressive, when it was apparent that they were surrounded by the police
party, and opened fire. The policemen barely escaped unhurt and in the return fire, some of the
offenders were injured. They were overpowered and apprehended. The apprehended men disclosed
their names as Javed son of Islam, Iqbal son of Rasheed and the third, who was caught after a
chase, revealed his name as Raees son of Mumtaj. All of them had firearms on them, besides
mobile phones, the details of which are not very relevant to the controversy involved here. All the
three were arrested.

9. On 16.03.2025 at 23:12 hours, the arrested men were interrogated, who disclosed that in
the night intervening 12/ 13.03.2025, the three of them, along with Waseem @ Gullu son of
Saleem and Sameer son of Shamshad, had slaughtered a cow and two calves, that were roaming
free, doing this act in the jungle of Village Lavvadaudpur, precisely a sugarcane field. The flesh of
the slaughtered progeny of the cow was sold, fetching them a sum of Rs.20,000/- in proceeds. A
sum of Rs.5,999/- was utilized to buy a mobile handset, which was recovered from Iqbal and the
residue was equally shared by all the offenders. It was also revealed that today when apprehended,
they were planning to slaughter cows, roaming free in the jungle. The arrest of the three offenders
and whatever they revealed was recorded on a mobile phone by Sub-Inspector Gyanendra Singh,
the mobile carrying SID No. 2724984928831148. On the basis of these facts, a separate Crime
No.104 of 2025, under Sections 109(1) B.N.S. and 3/25/27 of the Arms Act was registered vide
G.D. No. 4 at 2:20 a.m. on 17.03.2025 at P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli.

10. On the 17th of March, 2025, co-accused Sameer was apprehended by a police party
during their beat on the basis of suspicion from Village Laxmipura Turn, near the Yamuna Barrage
Road. The search of his person led to the recovery of an illicit knife, regarding which Sameer said
he had the knife on him for the purpose of security, that is, if during a cow slaughter, someone
confronted him, he could scare him away. It is said in the grounds that the co-accused Sameer was
arrested under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act on account of recovery of the illicit knife and after
communicating to him the grounds of his arrest, he was taken into police custody. During
interrogation, Sameer revealed that he along with his brother-in-law (sister's husband Javed) and
the latter's companion, Iqbal, Jane Alam (the petitioner) and Gullu, had together slaughtered a cow
in the night intervening 12/ 13.03.2025 in the jungle located in Village Lavvadaudpur. Sameer said
that he was trying to escape as the others were apprehended and waiting for the arrival of a friend,
when the Police caught him. Sameer was made aware about his complicity in Crime No.99 of 2025,
4 All. Jane Alam (Corpus) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1755
under Section 3/8 of the Act of 1955 and the fact that he was wanted there. The recovered knife
was taken into custody and sealed, drawing up a recovery memo, which no member of the public
signed, citing uncalled for enmity.

11. It is next said in the grounds of detention that the petitioner's co-accused Javed and
Iqbal, upon their discharge from hospital, and co-accused Sameer, who is in the Police Lockup
(Male), were all interrogated by Gyanendra Singh, Chowki In-charge, Chausana, whereupon Javed,
Iqbal and Sameer confessed to their guilt in one voice and said that in the night intervening 12/
13.03.2025, they along with their co-accused Jane Alam son of Saghir (the petitioner), besides
Waseem @ Gullu, had slaughtered two calves and a cow, that were roaming free in the jungle. The
accused took away the flesh of the animals and sold it in the adjoining villages. It fetch them
Rs.20,000/-, out of which Rs.5,999/- were spent on purchasing a mobile phone of POCO Make.
The mobile was purchased from Chausana in the name of Iqbal. The balance of the proceeds were
distributed equally amongst the accused. The grounds of detention further say that Iqbal and Javed,
together with their associate Raeesh, were on the lookout of catching hold of stray cattle in order to
slaughter them, when the Police caught all three of them.

12. It is also said in the grounds that co-accused Sameer had revealed that he knew that his
brother-in-law and co-accused Iqbal and Javed, besides Raeesh, were all arrested, on account of
which he was on the lookout of an opportunity to flee the place, when he was apprehended by the
Police. The grounds further say that co-accused Waseem @ Gullu son of Salim, a habitual
offender, carrying a reward of Rs.25,000/- on his head, was apprehended on 27.03.2025 from
Village Kachchi Garhi (Garhi Abdulla), P.S. Garhi Pukhta, District Shamli. The manner of his
arrest has been described, involving exchange of fire with the Police, in which Waseem sustained a
gunshot injury in his lower limb. He was given necessary medical aid and his injuries examined.
The place of encounter was examined by the Field Unit, where empties etc. were recovered. In case
of Waseem, he was arrested in Case Crime No.130 of 2025, under Section 109 (1), 317(5) B.N.S.
and Section 3/25/27 of the Arms Act vide G.D. Entry No.48 at 16:55 hours on 27.03.2025. He too
was challaned, apart from the aforesaid cases, in connection with Crime No.99 of 2025, under
Section 3/8 of the Act of 1955. The co-accused Waseem too, on being interrogated in the Police
Lockup, confessed to the offence under the Act of 1955. An arrest memo was separately drawn up
for him. The arrest was communicated to his relatives. The entire proceedings of arrest were videographed by Sub-Inspector Raghvendra Singh on his mobile phone and saved to the e-evidence
application. The aforesaid Waseem, during interrogation, revealed that he along with his coaccused, would slaughter the cow and its progeny, and his associates, Javed, Iqbal and Sameer,
would sell meat in the adjoining villages and the border areas of Haryana State. For the said reason,
he was challaned under Section 3/5A/8 of the Act of 1955. In his statement recorded pursuant to
the said crime under the Act of 1955, Waseem confessed it.

13. The grounds of detention then go on to say that on 09.04.2025, the petitioner
surrendered in Court and he was sent to the District Jail, Muzaffar Nagar by a warrant issued under
Section 187 B.N.S.S. On 21.04.2025, the Investigating Officer Pramod Kumar along with
Constable Lalit Mohan, pursuant to orders of the Court, went to the Jail to record the petitioner's
statement. The petitioner is attributed with having said to the Investigating Officer that he had
indulged in cow slaughter because of greed overtaking him. In the night intervening 12/13.03.2025,
1756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner acknowledged that he along with Javed, Iqbal, Waseem @ Gullu, Sameer, had
slaughtered two calves and a cow that were roaming unclaimed in the jungle of Village
Lavvadaudpur, doing so in the sugarcane field. They had sold off the meat for a sum of Rs.20,000/-
, out of which Iqbal bought a mobile worth Rs.5,999/- from some shop in town Chausana and the
balance of the proceeds were equally distributed amongst the accused.

14. It is also said in the grounds of detention that when the other co-accused were arrested,
the petitioner was fleeing his house. He also told the Investigating Officer that earlier too, he had
slaughtered the cow and its progeny in the jungle of Village Lavvadaudpur, roaming free and
unclaimed. Since there is no Muslim settlement, close to Lavvadaudpur, there is no suspicion
leading to ease in commission of the offence. The remains were hidden in the sugarcane fields.

15. It is next said in the grounds of detention that news of the cow slaughter in Village
Lavvadaudpur spread like wildfire in that village and the adjoining villages of Naya Gaon,
Dathaida, Gangarampur, Khedki, Panthupura, Jijaula, Laxmipura, Ballamajra, Toda and
Khodsama, leading natives of the said village and workers of various organizations/ Hindu
organizations to rush to the spot. Upon seeing the remains of the cow progeny, they were enraged.
This event coincided with the festival of Holi, which led to religious feelings of the villagers being
hurt. They let out their anger by resorting to slogan shouting and blockading the Thana BhawanJhinjhana Road completely. This cause a formidable road jam and on both sides of the blockade, a
long queue of vehicles, all standstill was there. The passersby and travellers, caught in this traffic
jam, were severely distressed and the public order was completely disturbed. Upon receipt of
information, the S.H.O., P.S. Jhinjhana along with police force posted at the Chowki and higher
officials of the police reached the spot in order to attempt pacifying the crowd that had gathered
there. Police summoned from the adjoining police stations was detailed to duty in maintaining
public order and the villagers were assured about the safety and security of their animals, all
towards an endeavour to restore public order.

16. The prevalent conditions on the spot are evident from copies of reports registered at
Police Chowki Chausana, P.S. Jhinjhana, memoranda handed over to the Police/ Administration by
the various Hindu organizations, the material collected in the cases registered, including statements
recorded and documentary evidence, besides intelligence collected from the adjoining villages by
speaking to the locals there and that secured through informers. It is also said in the grounds that
the incident was widely reported in various newspapers, which are annexed to the grounds.

17. The grounds of detention next say that on 09.05.2025, Head Constable 607 Raja
Beniwal and Constable 1107 Jitendra Kumar, upon returning from their beat, got G.D. No.15
registered at 4.30 p.m., saying that the petitioner had got information conveyed through his close
relatives from Jail that he would soon be released on bail by this Court, and upon being released
from jail, would again commit cow slaughter because his source of livelihood was cow slaughter.
The aforesaid beat information was investigated by Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar, who found that
the information carried correct facts, regarding which G.D. Entry No. 17 was made at 7.30 p.m. on
10.05.2025. In addition, the report submitted by the Local Intelligence Unit dated 29.04.2025 also
verified the same facts as carried in the beat report.
4 All. Jane Alam (Corpus) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1757
18. It is then said in the grounds that the petitioner was in jail in connection with Case
Crime No. 99 of 2025, under Section 3/5A/8 of the Act of 1955 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act,
incarcerated in the District Jail, Muzaffar Nagar, but he was regularly endeavouring to secure his
release on bail. It is noted that a bail application was filed before the Lower Court, which was
rejected, and then the Sessions Judge was moved, seeking bail. The Sessions Judge too rejected the
petitioner's bail plea. Now, the petitioner had moved this Court and there are strong chances that
the petitioner would be enlarged on bail.

19. It is said that the petitioner was consistently endeavouring to secure his release on bail.
The fact that the petitioner was so endeavouring is also verified by the report of P.S. Jhinjhana. The
beat information and its verification, besides the Local Intelligence Unit report dated 29.04.2025,
also verify the fact. It is next recorded in the grounds that it is, thus, evident that the petitioner's
release is nigh. His criminal propensity makes it evident that once released from jail, there is
likelihood of commission of such offences that public order in the local limits of P.S. Jhinjhana and
the adjoining areas would again be vitiated. The Detaining Authority then says that on the basis of
the aforesaid facts and grounds, he was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner's release from jail
could happen soon, and that upon release from jail, there was likelihood of his committing such
offences, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In order to prevent him from
acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to detain him.

20. The grounds then go on to inform the petitioner of his right to represent to the District
Magistrate and the State Government under Section 8 of the NSA. It was also clearly informed that
in the event the petitioner wished to exercise his right to represent to the Detaining Authority, he
could do so through the Superintendent of Jail, where he was detained promptly. Such a
representation, if moved within 12 days or before the approval of the detention by the State
Government, whichever was earlier, would be considered by the Detaining Authority. The right to
represent to the State Government could be exercised by the petitioner by moving the Secretary,
Home Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow, through the Superintendent of the Jail,
wherever the petitioner was detained.

21. The grounds further informs the petitioner that under Sections 9 and 10 of the NSA, if
he wished to represent his case before the Uttar Pradesh Advisory Board, Lucknow, he could do so
through the Registrar, U.P. Advisory Board, Lucknow, addressing him. The representation could be
moved through the Superintendent of the Jail, where he was detained. The petitioner was further
informed that the matter would be referred to the Advisory Board under Section 10 within three
weeks of the petitioner's detention and his representation, if received with delay, would not be
considered by the Board. The petitioner was also informed that under Section 11(1) of the NSA, if
the Advisory Board thought it fit or the petitioner desires so, he could be heard in person. If the
petitioner wanted a personal hearing before the Board, he must specifically mention it in his
representation, which would have to make through the Superintendent of the Jail, where he was
detained and presented to the State Government. The petitioner was informed that under Section 14
of the NSA, he had a right to represent his case against the detention to the Central Government. If
the petitioner desired to invoke this remedy, he could do so by making a representation, addressed
to the Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of India through the Deputy Secretary (Security),
1758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Security Department, Sector 11 Building, Jaisingh Road, near Wriggle Park, Jantar-Mantar, New
Delhi, moving the said representation through the Jail Superintendent.

22. On the basis of these grounds, the District Magistrate, Shamli, passed a detention order
under Section 3(3) read with Section 3(2) of the NSA, directing the petitioner to be detained in
District Jail, Muzaffar Nagar. Since the petitioner's representation against his detention to the
Advisory Board was rejected, the State Government, in exercise of their powers under Section
12(1), confirmed the detention order, directing the petitioner to be detained for a period of 12
months w.e.f. 26.05.2025.

23. Aggrieved, this habeas corpus writ petition has been preferred.

24. The writ petition was presented before the Registry on 16.09.2025 and all defects were
removed on 06.10.2025. It came up before a Division Bench for admission on 09.10.2025, when
rule nisi was granted. On 30.10.2025, when the writ petition again came up, a counter affidavit was
filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Shamli and another on behalf of the Jail Superintendent,
Central Jail, Prayagraj, in Court. No counter affidavit was filed by then on behalf of the Union of
India. A week's further time was granted to the Union to file their return. The matter adjourned to
07.11.2025. On 07.11.2025, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Union of India also. A
counter affidavit was further filed on behalf of the State of U.P. by the learned A.G.A., both of
which were taken on record.

25. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was granted three days' time to file rejoinder
affidavits to all the unanswered affidavits. On 13.11.2025, three days' further time was granted to
the petitioner for rejoinders.

26. On 18.11.2025, four rejoinder affidavits were filed by the petitioner answering the
counter affidavits. On the said day, noticing a prima facie discrepant stand in the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the District Magistrate and the ground of detention on a particular point, we
passed the following order (relevant part)

 "In the grounds of detention at page no. 75 of the paper book, it is said, in the opening
lines of paragraph no. 12 that the detenue surrendered on 09.04.2025 and was remanded to judicial
custody.

 By contrast, in the counter affidavit on behalf of the District Magistrate, in paragraph no.
2 of the affidavit, it is averred :

 2. That the petitioner was arrested on 09.04.2025, in Case Crime No. 99 of 2025 under
section 3, 5-A, 8 of Cow Slaughter Act and section 4/25 of the Arms Act, Police Station, Jhinjhana
District Shamli. In pursuance of the said case, an order of remand dated 09.04.2025 was passed by
A.C.J.M Shamli and in pursuance of the said remand order, the petitioner was sent to Jail.
4 All. Jane Alam (Corpus) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1759
 The grounds of detention, the detention order dated 26.05.2025 as well as the counter
affidavit filed by the District Magistrate are both signed and sworn, respectively by the same
Officer, to wit, Arvind Kumar Chauhan, who is the incumbent District Magistrate, Shamli.

 Let Arvind Kumar Chauhan file his personal affidavit, explaining this discrepancy in the
grounds of detention and the counter affidavit filed by him. The said personal affidavit shall be
filed by the District Magistrate, on or before 25.11.2025.

 Adjourned to 25.11.2025.

 To be taken up in the cause list of the day."

27. In compliance with the order last mentioned, the District Magistrate filed his personal
affidavit dated 24.11.2025, where he explained the inaccuracy attributing it to a clerical error in
drafting the counter affidavit dated 09.04.2025 in the following words:

 "3. That it is humbly submitted that deponent is tendering his unconditional, unfettered
and unqualified apology for the inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Court.

 4. That it is humbly submitted that due to inadvertent mistake, in para-2 of counter
affidavit of the deponent, "the petitioner was arrested on 09.04.2025" has been wrongly typed in
place of "the petitioner had surrendered on 09.04.2025."

 5. That the deponent is again tendering his unconditional apology for the inconvenience
caused to this Hon'ble Court and in para-2 of the counter affidavit of the deponent, "the petitioner
had surrendered on 09.04.2025 may kindly be incorporated in place of "the petitioner was arrested
on 09.04.2025."

28. Heard Mr. Noor Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition,
Mr. Ghanshyam Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate-I on behalf of the State and Mr.
Manish Pandey, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India.

29. Mr. Noor Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Detaining
Authority has not applied his mind, making the detention order mechanically and arbitrarily on the
recommendation of the Sponsoring Authority, that is to say, the Police. It is next argued that the
grounds of detention are not proper and the detention is based on speculation; not reality. The next
submission is that the offence attributed to the petitioner is a petty offence, triable by Magistrate,
which even if established to have been committed by him, would constitute no more than violation
of law and order. There is no material to show that the petty offence, of which the petitioner was a
part, could or did lead to vitiation of public order. Since, there is no case more than that of a
violation of the law and order, the prosecution launched against the petitioner would test the
petitioner's guilt or otherwise. There is absolutely no basis to invoke the NSA and detain the
petitioner without trial, it being evident that there was no violation of public order.
1760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30. It is next argued that the detenue is not at all involved in the case and his name has
come to light on the confession of a co-accused. As such, it was not admissible in law. It is
emphasized that the petitioner, not being named in Case Crime No.99 of 2025 and his name
connected to the crime on the basis of information given by a police informer, when the petitioner
came to know about the fact that he was wanted in Crime No.99 of 2025, under Section 3/8 of the
Act of 1955, immediately surrendered before the Court. As such, there is no apprehension of
disturbance to the public order from him. The opinion that his release on bail would disturb public
order is based on speculation, surmises and conjectures. The grounds of detention are founded on
incorrect information supplied by the Sponsoring Authority. It is also emphasized that the
petitioner has no criminal history. It is next argued that there was no material to show that the
petitioner, if enlarged on bail, would again indulge in commission of the offence of cow slaughter,
endangering the maintenance of public order in future. There being no objective material in this
regard, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is clearly vitiated on account of being
based on no material. It is specifically argued that the facts mentioned in paragraph No.15 of the
grounds of detention are wrong and false.

31. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Annu @ Aniket v. Union
of India and others, 2025 (4) GLT 39.

32. Mr. Ghanshyam Kumar, learned A.G.A.-I, has refuted the submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the detention order has been made well within the
requirements of the law. He has taken us through the various affidavits and the material, upon
which the order of detention is founded.

33. So far as the submission that the impugned order is one made without application of
mind is concerned, we do not think that, that is the case. A perusal of the grounds of detention
show that there is a copious consideration not only of the crime disclosed in the FIR, giving rise to
Crime No.99 of 2025, but the circumstances of the occurrence and its impact in the locale, where
the offence was committed, vis-a-vis the issue of public order. This is not a case, where there is a
mechanical recital of the fact alone that the offence constitutes a violation of public order, but
shows due application of mind to the offence and its impact in the locale on the maintenance of
public order. It is also not the case that the Detaining Authority has proceeded to pass the detention
order without application of mind to the requirements of the law, after describing the ramifications
of the offence in the locale. The Authority has held it to be an act that vitiated public order. It is
also remarked by the Authority on the basis of material before it that it was subjectively satisfied
that the petitioner was attempting to secure his release on bail and there was likelihood of his being
released on bail. It is then said that the material further showed that the petitioner intended to repeat
the offence by capturing stray cows, which if done, would again lead to the public order being
prejudicially affected. All these features, which figure in the grounds of detention, make it evident
that this is not a case, where it can be said that the order of detention has been passed without
application of mind. The first point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, therefore,
negatived.

34. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of detention are
speculative and take into account irrelevant material. There is a detailed description of the events of
4 All. Jane Alam (Corpus) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1761
the day beginning with discovery of remains of the cow and its progeny discovered by the police
party in the sugarcane field, located in the jungle of Village Lavvadaudpur. The events that folded
thereafter are amply recorded with movement of police parties, deployment of police force, protest
by the public, blockade of the road and dislocation of life on the day in the locale, where it all
happened. In the circumstances, to say that the grounds of detention are not proper and the
detention based on speculation, is stated to be rejected.

35. The next point that arises for consideration is, if the act attributed to the petitioner or
the offence committed by him are no more than violation of law and order, or these go way beyond
it, to constitute a violation of public order. We must notice here that we have dealt with this point in
our judgment of date, arising out of the same incident in Sameer and another v. State of U.P. and
others, 2026:AHC:83732-DB. There, we have held:

 "27. This takes us to the next submission that the crime reported against the petitioner, on
the foot of which the impugned order of detention has been passed, is no more than an instance of
the violation of law and order; not an incident, which prejudically affects public order, so as to
entitle the respondents to detain the petitioner without trial, invoking the provisions of the NSA.

 28. We must remark here that in the genesis of every event, that is an infraction of the
public order or its vitiation, there is some crime punishable by law, which can always be termed as
a violation of law and order. The violation of law and order is, of course, to be punished in
accordance with law after prosecuting the offender, but this does not mean that every infraction of
the law and order, that spins out of its trouble spot and widely affects the even tempo of life, is to
be regarded as a violation of law and order alone. Whether a violation of the law and order would
be just that and no more or have a cascading effect, unsettling the even tempo of life in the locale,
or even far and wide, is dependent upon the circumstances, the time, the place and the situation,
where the infraction is committed. The point is well elucidated in the celebrated decision of the
Supreme Court in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1966 SC 740, where
their Lordships of the Constitution Bench held:

 "54. We have here a case of detention under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules which
permits apprehension and detention of a person likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. It follows that if such a person is not detained public disorder is the
apprehended result. Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but
disorder is a broad spectrum which includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most
serious and cataclysmic happenings. Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of
disorders or only some of them? The answer to this serves to distinguish "public order" from "law
and order" because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them. Public order if disturbed, must lead
to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards
quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers
to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public
order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise
communal passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of
public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects order
but before if can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large.
1762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action
under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are. A District
Magistrate is entitled to take action under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent subversion of public order but
not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances.

 55.