# Praveen Dubey (In Jail) v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 92
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-12-02
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.44587 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/praveen-dubey-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40063
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

National Security Act 1980- Section 3 (2)
- Detention Order- The people of the
area have been terrorized by the act of
the petitioner and his associates and
there is terror and panic in the area and
the
even
tempo
of
life
has
been
disturbed as people are not able to come
out of their places and are living under
great strain. Hence in our opinion it is a
case of breach of public order and not
merely law and order. (Held in Para 8 )
Case Law Referred:
A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1228

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
grudge that the victim was the tenant of
the petitioner whom he wanted to evict.
The mere fact that the victim belonged to
minority community cannot be taken to
mean
that
the incident kicked up
communal tension.

10. We are of the opinion that the
incident of 1997 in respect of which
concerned parties had compounded the
offence could not be a ground for
detaining the petitioner under the National
Security Act.

11. Our conclusion is that the
incidents
whereupon
the
impugned
detention order is based are not relatable
to disturbance of public order. The
detention of the petitioner under National
Security Act cannot be justified. As such
we allow the writ petition and quash the
detention order in question.

12. It is ordered that the detenue
shall be released forthwith if not wanted
in any other connection.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 2.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.44587 of
2002

Praveen Dubey
...Petitioner (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh (S.S.C.)
A.G.A.

National Security Act 1980- Section 3 (2)
- Detention Order- The people of the
area have been terrorized by the act of
the petitioner and his associates and
there is terror and panic in the area and
the
even
tempo
of
life
has
been
disturbed as people are not able to come
out of their places and are living under
great strain. Hence in our opinion it is a
case of breach of public order and not
merely law and order. (Held in Para 8 )
Case Law Referred:
A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1228

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This Writ petition has been filed
against the impugned detention order
dated 24.5.2002 - Annexure 3 to the
petition under the National Security Act.

2. Heard Counsel for Parties.

3. In the grounds of detention, which
are contained in Annexure-3, it has been
stated that the petitioner has an associate,
namely, Lala alias Kishan, Who has taken
a house at 8 Kusum Vihar, Thana New
Agra, on rent. They have made it as a
place for criminals to collect and plan
murder, dacoity etc. and they have been
doing these activities. Petitioner is also
indulging
in
these
activities..
The
aforesaid
Lala
alias
Kishan
took
employment under M/s Goyal Consultant
and
another
associate
Banwari
got
employment
with
Ganpati Sales in
October 2001 and November 2001
respectively, so that they could find out
the income of those establishments. The
petitioner and his associates Sanju,
Banwari Lala entered into a criminal
conspiracy and they found out that Sanjai
Goyal's father had gone for an operation
on 21.1.2002 to Madras and his mother
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Praveen Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others
93
and brother had also gone there. Hence
Sanjai Goyal was alone and was looking
after both the aforesaid establishments.
On 21.1.2002 at about 8.30 P.M. the
petitioner and his associate Lala went on a
scooter with police signs along with other
associates. The petitioner stood at the
door of the house as a guard and Lala
stood at the door of the bed room. Sanjai
Goyal trusting Banwari and Sanjai
allowed them to enter the house where
they started stealing Rs.37,000/-, a cheque
and other papers, to which Sanjai Goyal
objected. Sanjay Goyal ran with the bag
towards the drawing room so that he
could open the door of the drawing room
and run away with his money to safety.
But that door was closed and Sanjay
Goyal could not run away. Sanju shot him
in the face. The neighbourers Punit
Gautam and Hari Om could not believe
that persons who were regularly coming
to Sanjay's house could commit such a
criminal act. The petitioner and his
associates
armed
with
country-made
pistols and knives took away the money
and papers on a scooter. Sanjay Goyal
died due to his injuries. One knife was
found on the spot. The petitioner and Lala
were arrested at the house at Kusum
Vihar and the scooter was also seized and
Rs.10,000/- was found on the person of
Sanju along with pistol, cartridges and
knife and also money and the bag which
was looted along with the cheque and
papers.

4. This incident caused panic in the
locality and people were terrorized and
public order was disturbed. Despite
posting of police as yet people in
Indrapuri are not able to freely go out to
daily work and people close their doors
after 8.00 P.M. The People are feeling
unsafe and have put up gates in their
colony
and
have
arranged
for
Chowkidars. On 22.4.2002 the citizens
met the Circle Officer Hari Parvat and
told him their anguish and fear. The
petitioner and his associates have been
giving threats personally and on telephone
and people are not able to lead their
normal lives.

5. In our opinion on the above facts
the impugned detention order was fully
justified and was validly passed. We do
not agree with the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that it is
a case of law and order only and not
public order. Whether it is a case of law
and order only or of public order depends
on the facts of each case and no general
rule can be laid down in this connection,
vide decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in Santosh vs. District
Magistrate, Writ Petition No. 23645 of
2002
decided
today,
following
the
decision of the Supreme Court in Arun
Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, A.I.R.
1970 S.C. 1228. In Arun Ghosh's case the
Supreme Court observed:

"The question whether a man has only
committed a breach of law and order or
has acted in a manner likely to cause
disturbance of public order is a question
of degree and the extent of the reach of
the act upon society. An act by itself is
not determinant of its own gravity.
Similar acts in different contexts affect
differently law and order on the one hand
and public order on the other. It is always
a question of degree of harm and its affect
upon the community."

6. In the present case it appears that
the petitioner's associates had taken
employment in the service of the family
of Sanjay Goyal in order to get
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
information about their income and
habits, and they have committed a
heinous crime by killing Sanjay Goyal.
The people of the area have been
terrorized by the act of the petitioner and
his associates and there is terror and panic
in the area, and the even tempo of life has
been disturbed as people are not able to
come out of their places and are living
under great strain. Hence in our opinion it
is a case of breach of public order and not
merely law and order.

7. We see no reason to interfere with
the impugned order of detention.

8. In the counter-affidavit filed by
the State it has been stated in paragraphs 3
and
4 how representations of the
petitioner were dealt with. A perusal of
the same shows that there was no delay in
deciding these representations.

9. Thus, there is no force in this writ
petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 2.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 23645 of
2002

Santosh

...Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Agra and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri L.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh (Addl.S.C.)
A.G.A.

National Security Act-1980-section 3(2)
- Detention order even on the basis of
Solitary incident, a valid detention order
can be passed - There have been several
incidents of rape and molestation of dalit
women which adversely effects the
public order. (held in para 6)

In our opinion rape of a dalit girl of a
tender age does affect public order. We
find no merit in this petition and it is
dismissed.
Case Law Referred:
AIR 1970 SC 1228
J.T. 1992 (5) SC 163

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
against the impugned order of detention
dated 15.1.2002 passed under the N.S.A.
vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

2. We have heard the learned
counsel for the parties.

3. The grounds of detention have
been
annexed
as
Annexure
C.A.I
alongwith the counter affidavit of the
District Magistrate. A perusal of the same
shows that the allegation against the
petitioner is that on 25.11.2001 at about 4
P.M. the petitioner took one Km. Shashi
aged about 11 years to some bushes and
threw her on the ground and raped her,
and when she opposed this he tried to kill
her. When Km. Shashi shouted several
persons came on the spot and the
petitioner threatened to kill them. There
was bleeding from the vagina of Km.
Shashi due to the act of the petitioner.
Due to this act the peace of the locality
was disturbed and dalits were terrorized
and this disturbed the public order.