# Santosh v. District Magistrate, Agra and others - **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 94 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-12-02 - **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 23645 of 2002 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-v-district-magistrate-agra-and-others-40064 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote National Security Act-1980-Section 3 (2) - Detention order the detaining authority did not inform the petitioner that he has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority- the impugned detention order dated 28.8.2002 is quashed.(held in para 3). The petitioner has been informed that he can make a representation to the State Government, Central Government and the Advisory Board. However, it has not been stated that the petitioner was informed that he can also make a representation to the detaining authority. This petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 28.8.2002 is quashed. Case Law referred: 2000 (41) SCC 843 J.T. 2000 (41) ACC 704 ## Text 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. http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Santosh Vs. District Magistrate, Agra and others 95 4. It appears that Km. Shashi was a dalit. There have been several incidents of rape and molestation of dalit women which adversely affects the public order. We do not agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that this is only a case of law and order. 5. In Arun Ghosh vs. State of West Bangal, AIR 1970 SC 1228 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 context, affect differently law and order on the one had and public order on the other. It is always a question of degree of harm and its affect upon the community." 6. Learned counsels for the petitioner submitted that it a solitary incident but it is well settled that even on the basis of solitary incident a valid detention order can be passed vide David Patrick Ward vs. Union of India, J.T. 1992 (5) SC 163. 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. ---------- 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. 44364 of 2002 Bhura ...Petitioner (In Jail) Versus District Magistrate, Aligarh. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ramesh Sinha Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B.N.Singh Senior S.C. A.G.A. National Security Act-1980-Section 3 (2) - Detention order the detaining authority did not inform the petitioner that he has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority- the impugned detention order dated 28.8.2002 is quashed.(held in para 3). The petitioner has been informed that he can make a representation to the State Government, Central Government and the Advisory Board. However, it has not been stated that the petitioner was informed that he can also make a representation to the detaining authority. This petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 28.8.2002 is quashed. Case Law referred: 2000 (41) SCC 843 J.T. 2000 (41) ACC 704 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned detention order