# Shahid Quraishi @ Maimber (In Detention) v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 353
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-17
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 840 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pankaj Naqvi, Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shahid-quraishi-maimber-in-detention-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45067
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. National Security Act, 1980 - Section
3(2) & (3) - Detention - Satisfaction -
Section
3(2)
enables
the
appropriate
government to detain any person if it is
satisfied that with a view to prevent such a
person
from
acting
in
any
manner
prejudicial to or from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies
and services essential to the community, it
is necessary to do so. (Para 5)

B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ of Habeas Corpus - Judicial Review -
Scope of Satisfaction under National
Security Act, 1980 - Satisfaction recorded
by the detaining authority in respect of
the breach of public order is subjective,
but the same is to be based on relevant
materials - Once relevant materials are
existing, the courts are refrained from
examining the legality / propriety of the
same - Scope of judicial review in such
matters is only confined to examining the
existence of relevant materials upon
which a person is detained for breaching
of public order - Detaining authority and
the State Government displayed absolute
non-application of mind while issuing and
approving the order of detention- Held,
detention order cannot be sustained, is
liable to be set aside. (Para 6 & 14)

C. National Security Act, 1980 - Cow
Slaughtering - Slaughtering and consumption
of beef per se, cannot attract the provisions
of the National Security Act, 1980, it would be
an offence under the provisions of the Cow
Slaughter Act. (Para 12)

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

## Text

1 All. Shahid Quraishi @ Maimber Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
353
acquittal recorded in favour of the
respondents.

(22) It is established law that in case
of acquittal, the finding recorded, if found
to be based on material on record, and the
view taken by the trial court is justified
although the alternate view is also
available, then the view that favours the
accused is to be preferred by the Appellate
Court. It being so, we have no hesitation in
observing that the view adopted by the
trial court in recording finding of acquittal
is based on material on record.

(23) Consequently, this Government
Appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

(24) The leave to appeal is hereby refused.
----------
(2020)1ILR 353

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ NAQVI, J.
THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 831 OF 2019
with
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 840 of 2019

Shahid Quraishi @ Maimber
 ...Petitioner(In Detention)
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Deepak Mishra, Sri Thakur Azad
Singh, Sri Prahlad Kumar Khare

A. National Security Act, 1980 - Section
3(2) & (3) - Detention - Satisfaction -
Section
3(2)
enables
the
appropriate
government to detain any person if it is
satisfied that with a view to prevent such a
person
from
acting
in
any
manner
prejudicial to or from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies
and services essential to the community, it
is necessary to do so. (Para 5)

B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ of Habeas Corpus - Judicial Review -
Scope of Satisfaction under National
Security Act, 1980 - Satisfaction recorded
by the detaining authority in respect of
the breach of public order is subjective,
but the same is to be based on relevant
materials - Once relevant materials are
existing, the courts are refrained from
examining the legality / propriety of the
same - Scope of judicial review in such
matters is only confined to examining the
existence of relevant materials upon
which a person is detained for breaching
of public order - Detaining authority and
the State Government displayed absolute
non-application of mind while issuing and
approving the order of detention- Held,
detention order cannot be sustained, is
liable to be set aside. (Para 6 & 14)

C. National Security Act, 1980 - Cow
Slaughtering - Slaughtering and consumption
of beef per se, cannot attract the provisions
of the National Security Act, 1980, it would be
an offence under the provisions of the Cow
Slaughter Act. (Para 12)

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.)

Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Shri Thakur
Azad Singh and Sri Prahlad Kumar Khare,
for the Union of India and Shri Deepak
Mishra, the learned A.G.A.

These habeas corpus writ petitions
have
been
filed by
the
petitioners
challenging
their
detentions
dated
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4.4.2019, under Section 3(2) & (3) of the
National Security Act, 1980 by the District
Magistrate, Bulandshahar, for a period of 3
months which was extended twice.

1. The grounds of detention dated
4.4.2019 served on the petitioners on
4.4.2019 alleged the following:-

(I) Bulandshahar was a host to
a Muslim congregation called, "Tabligi
Ijatma" from 1.12.2018 to 3.12.2018
wherein lakhs had come from all over
the country for which elaborate security
arrangements had been made. The
congregation came to an end in the
evening of 3.12.2018.

(II) Sri Subodh Kumar Singh,
In-charge Inspector, P.S. Sayana on
3.12.2018 at about 10 am received
information that remnants of cow's
progeny have been found in the jungles
of Mahav at the sugarcane fields of Raj
Kumar,
Pradhan.
The
In-charge
Inspector
immediately
directed
Constable 924 Shubham Saini, at Police
Chauki, Chingrawathi to reach the
scene as he too would be reaching
shortly. On above information, Con.
Shubham Saini and Con. 1245 Pradeep
Kumar left on motorcycle to the scene
who intimated the In-charge Inspector
on mobile regarding recovery of the
remnants
of
cows
progeny.
The
Inspector
along
with
force,
soon
thereafter reached the scene in their
official vehicles wherein they came
across a large crowd protesting to the
recoveries of remnants of cows progeny,
communal tension in the air, the
Inspector
In-charge
attempted
to
assuage the members of the majority
community that strict action would be
taken against the offenders. One Yogesh
Raj alleged to be present at the scene,
lodged a report at P.S. Sayana at 12.43
P.M, against Sudaif Chaudhary @
Iliyas, Sharafat, Anas, Sajid, Parvez and
Sarfuddin as Case Crime No.582/2018,
under
Section
3/5/8
of
the
Cow
Slaughter Act and Section 295-A of the
IPC.

(III) Large number of persons
came from village Mahav on their
tractors and trolleys towards Sayana -
Bulandshahar Link Road to arrive at
Police Chauki, Chingrawathi at 13.35
hrs carrying remnants of the cows
progeny in their hands and raising
slogans. The crowd turned violent,
blocked
the
road,
sought
to
be
countered by public announcements by
the police on loudspeakers to clear road
as members of the congregation were
also returning towards Garh- Amroha -
Moradabad and other districts.

(IV) A challenging situation
emerged before the administration as on
the one hand they had to assuage the
feeling of the protestors against cow
slaughtering who were indulging in
stone pelting, use of fire-arms, sharp
weapons and lathi / danda at the police
on the other they had to maintain free
flow of traffic. The police personnel
with a view to save their lives, attempted
to
hide
themselves.
Meanwhile,
a
firearm shot hit one Sunil Kumar and
the crowd went beserk. One of the
members of the agitated crowd attacked
Inspector In-charge Subodh Kumar
Singh with an axe, assaulted him with
lathi / dandas, followed by fire-arm
shots as a result of which he sustained
grievous injuries. His licenced pistol and
3 mobile phones were snatched. The
crowd also damaged the property of
Police
Chauki
Chingrawathi
by
damaging wireless sets including the
other properties, being set on fire. The
1 All. Shahid Quraishi @ Maimber Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
355
road was littered with shoes and
chappals and people running helter -
skelter. The private vehicles were also
set on fire. The mob did not even spare
the Circle Officer who ran for his life
inside the premises of Police Chauki
Sayana but the mob forcibly entered the
room shouting that he be also not
spared. The Police Chauki, Sayana was
also set on fire. Large number of
persons
suffered
injuries,
an
atmosphere of fear had developed,
nearby Girls school was closed as also
doors of the neighbouring houses. The
injured Inspector Subodh Kumar Singh
was taken to C.H.C., Lakhawati, where
he was declared brought dead. On
above allegations, an FIR as Case Crime
No.583/2018,
under
Section
147/148/149/124-A/ 332/ 333/ 353/ 341/
336/ 307/ 302/ 427/ 436/ 395 IPC, 7 of
the Criminal Law Amendment Act and
3⁄4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act was registered against 27
named and 50-60 unnamed accused on
4.12.2018 at 2.51 P.M.

(V) On 4.12.2018 at about 8
AM at village Nayabans, P.S. Sayana,
remnants of a dead cow were recovered
from the sugarcane fields of one
Sheeshpal
which
on
forensic
examination, was found to be of cow's
progeny, in respect of which an FIR as
Case Crime No.584/2018, under Section
3/5/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act was
registered against unknown.

(VI)

(a) During investigation of
Case Crime no. 582 of 2018, 3 accused
namely Nadim @ Nadimuddin, Raees
and Kala Qureshi were arrested. They
jointly and voluntarily stated that they
along with one Haroon and others, on
the night of 1.12.2018 and 2/3.12.2018
had slaughtered 1 and 3 progencies of
cow in the jungles of Nayabans &
Mahav and had carried its meat in their
vehicle.

(b)
On
5.12.2018,
accused
Sajid, Sarfuddin, Banne Khan and Asif
Khan came to be arrested in Case
Crime
No.582/2018.
During
investigation,
it
transpired
that
informant Yogesh Raj falsely implicated
7 named accused and two others,
namely, Banne Khan and Asif in view of
ongoing dispute with the local matter
relating to the use of loudspeaker in a
Masjid.
All
the
accused
stood
exonerated.

(c) Yunus @ Bol and Gulfam
came to be arrested on 23.12.2018 and
26.12.2018
respectively.
They
also
confessed that on the intervening night
of 2/3.12.2018, they were present at the
jungles of Mahav along with their
accomplices Nadeem @ Nadimuddin,
Raees, Kala Qureshi, Haroon and
others, had slaughtered 3 prohibited
progenies, meat distributed amongst
them and remaining meat was handed
over to Haroon while the left over
remnants were left at the scene. They
also confessed that on the intervening of
1.12.2018 a cow was slaughtered, meat
taken, remnants left at the scene.
Gulfam also stated that accused Haroon
is aware of the names of other accused.

(d) On 29.12.2018, co-accused
Haroon came to be arrested in an open
jeep with DBBL guns and cartridges.
He confessed that the jeep belongs to
one Mehboob Ali. He further confessed
his involvement along with Nadeem @
Nadimuddin,
Kala
Qureshi,
Raees,
Azhar, Gulfam, Yunus @ Bol, Rashid
Qureshi and petitioners (real brothers)
of slaughtering of prohibited progenies
in the jungles of Nayabans on the night
of 1.12.2018 and on the intervening
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
night of 2/3.12.2018 in the jungles of
Mahav,
animals
skinned,
meat
distributed amongst themselves, left
over meat was given to Shahid Maimber
(petitioner) who was running a camp
for the attendees of the congregation.

(e) Petitioner- Imran Quershi
surrendered
before
the
court
on
1.4.2019. He alleged that hunting is his
hobby, in which he along with his
brother-Shahid Qureshi (co-petitioner),
Raees, Nadeem @ Nadimuddin, Rashid,
Haroon, Mehboob Ali, Kala Qureshi,
Azhar, Yunus @ Bol and Gulfam, often
indulged in hunting for cows at night,
thereafter meat sold in the market. He
also confessed that on the night of
2.12.2018, he along with his brother
Shahid, Rashid and Mehboob Ali
remained in the tents of Sanskar Farm
House for hosting the attendees of
cogregation, rest accused went for
hunting.
At
about
2-3
A.M,
on
3.12.2018, other accused returned at the
farm house with prohibited progenies,
wherein they chopped the meat with the
help of knives in order to serve as
"keema" & "biryani" to the guests.
Shahid (co-petitioner) also made a
similar confessional statement.

(VII) The grounds finally alleged that
although the petitioners had no previous
criminal history, but in view of their
confessional statements that they did
indulge in cow slaughtering in an organized
and clandestine manner, deeply hurting the
religious
sentiments
of
the
majority
community. The LIU also alleged in its
reports dated 9.12.2018, 10.1.2019 and
25.2.2019 that the incident dated 3.12.2018
was a fall out of the alleged slaughtering on
2/3.12.2018.

2.

The
petitioners
preferred
representation against their detentions
dated 4.4.2019 on 16.4.2019 before the State
Government through the Jail Superintendent,
which came to be rejected by the State
Government on 1.5.2019. The last extension is
dated 1.10.2019, i.e., for 9 months from the
order of detention dated 4.4.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
assailed the detention order on the
following grounds-

i)The detention suffers from the
vice of non-application of mind as the only
material against the petitioners is the
confessional
statements,
which
too
indicates that they were not present at the
time of slaughtering as they were only
alleged to have served the prohibited meat
to the attendees of the congregation
(members of the minority community) in
the
camp
of
Shahid
Member
(copetitioner) at Sanskar Farm House.

ii) Petitioners are only alleged to
be involved in Case Crime no. 582 of
2018. They are neither accused nor
suspects in Case Crime no.s 583 and 584,
both of 2018 yet the detaining authority
considered the cumulative effect of all 3
cases, while passing the detention order
which also displays non-application of
mind.

4. Learned A.G.A opposed the
submissions on the ground that the mode
and manner of the occurrence indicates
that it was a well organized activity as the
petitioners'
often
indulged
in
cow
slaughtering which coincided with the
conclusion of the conclave with a view to
disturb public order so as to incite
communal passion / feelings. He further
submitted that once detention is based on
relevant considerations, detention being a
matter of subjective satisfaction, is not
open to judicial review.
1 All. Shahid Quraishi @ Maimber Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
357

5. Section 3(2) of the National
Security Act, 1980 enables the appropriate
government to detain any person if it is
satisfied that with a view to prevent such a
person from acting in any manner
prejudicial to or from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies
and services essential to the community, it
is necessary to do so, make an order
directing that such person be detained.

6. It is well settled that the
satisfaction recorded by the detaining
authority in respect of the breach of public
order is subjective, but the same is to be
based on relevant materials. Once relevant
materials are existing, the courts are
refrained from examining the legality /
propriety of the same. Thus, the scope of
judicial review in such matters is only
confined to examining the existence of
relevant materials upon which a person is
detained for breaching of public order.

7. The detention order refers to three
FIR's as Case Crime Nos. 582; 583 & 584
all of 2018. The petitioners are neither
named accused in Case Crime No.583 &
584, both of 2018 nor the I.O's of Case
Crime Nos.583 & 584 ever obtained any
statement of the petitioners nor till date
any charge-sheet has been submitted
against them. Thus, the detention of the
petitioners is based only on Case Crime
No.582/2018.

8. The FIR in Case Crime
No.582/2018 lodged by one Yogesh Raj
against 7 named accused, namely, Sudaif
Chaudhary, Ilyas, Sharaful, Anas, Sajid,
Parvez & Sarfuddin, alleged that the said
accused
were
slaughtering
cows
on
3.12.2018 at 9 AM in the jungles of village
Mahav. During investigation, names of all
the 7 accused came to be exonerated as
their false implication was established in
view of previous animosity of the
informant with the Maulvi of a local
Masjid over use of loudspeakers. On
18.12.2018,
one
Nadeem
@
Nadeemuddin, Raees & Kala Qureshi were
arrested from whom certain recoveries of
DBBL gun, gandasa, knife and a wooden
chopping board was made. They confessed
that they along with co-accused Haroon
had slaughtered a cow in the night of
1.12.2018 in the jungle of Nayabans,
remains thrown in the sugarcane field as
also the slaughtering of 3 cows on the
intervening night of 2.12.2018 in the
jungles of Mahav of which the meat was
taken by them. Thus, even the 3 arrested
accused,
namely,
Nadeem
@
Nadeemuddin, Raees and Kala Qureshi
were not implicating the petitioners. Coaccused Yunus @ Bol and Gulfam came
to
be
arrested
on
23.12.2018
and
26.12.2018
respectively.
They
also
confirmed the participation of Nadeem @
Nadeemuddin and Haroon in the alleged
occurrence dated 2/3.12.2018 (night).
These two accused, i.e., Yunus @ Bol and
Gulfam
also
did
not
disclose
the
involvement
of
the
petitioners.
On
29.12.2018, accused Haroon came to be
arrested in an open jeep. He confessed that
the jeep belongs to one Mehboob Ali and
admitted his involvement along with
petitioners, Nadeem, Yunus @ Bol,
Rashid, Raees and others in respect of
occurrence in the night of 1.12.2018 in the
village
of
Nayabans
and
that
of
2/3.12.2018 in the village of Mahav as
they were fond of hunting; meat was
distributed amongst them and the rest was
given to the petitioners.

9. A perusal of the confessional
statement of accused Haroon as alleged in
para-11 of the grounds of detention,
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nowhere alleges that the petitioners were
physically present at the time of alleged
slaughtering on the night of 1.12.2018 at
the jungles of village Nayabans or on the
night of 2.12.2018 at the jungles of village
Mahav. On the contrary, it only alleges
that the meat of the prohibited progeny
after having been distributed between
them, rest was handed over to petitioners.

10.

The
petitioners
in
their
confessional statements admitted that the
prohibited meat was handed over to them
by Raees, Nadeem, Haroon, Kala, Azhar,
Yunus @ Bol and Gulfam which after
cooking were served as "keema" and
"briyani" to the attendees of the conclave
in the tent of co-petitioner Shahid Member
installed at Sanskar Farm House.

11. There is no material to indicate
that the petitioners were either physically
present at the time of slaughtering on the
intervening night of 2/3.12.2018 at the
jungles of village Mahav. On the contrary,
the only material against the petitioners is
the confessional statement of accused
Haroon, indicating that the left over meat
was given to the petitioners which after
cooking was served by them to the guests
of the conclave (exclusively belonging to
the members of the minority community)
in a camp installed by Shahid Member
(co-petitioner) at Sanskar Farm House.
The material nowhere indicates that while
the prohibited meat was being served, any
member of the majority community was
present who could claim to be a witness to
the serving of the prohibited meat. The
alleged disruption of public order on
3.12.2018 was only subsequent to the
recovery of the remnants of the cow's
progeny in the jungles of village Mahav,
resulting in the loss of 2 lives one that of
Inspector In-charge Subodh Kumar Singh
and the other of one Sunil Kumar along
with damage to public property in Case
Crime No.583/2018. It is not the case set
up in the grounds of detention that the
disruption of public order on 3.12.2018
was on account of the prohibited meat
being served to the guests of the conclave
as at that point of time, no one had any
inkling other than the guests that the meat
which was served belonged to the
prohibited category which came to be
known
only
after
the
confessional
statements of petitioners which recorded
after more than 4 months of the alleged
occurrence.

12. Slaughtering and consumption of
beef per se, cannot attract the provisions of
the National Security Act, 1980, it would
be an offence under the provisions of the
Cow Slaughter Act.

13. The resulting scenario from the
above discussion is as under:

(i) There is no material on record
to remotely suggest / infer that the
petitioner was physically present at the
jungles of Mahav at the time of
slaughtering:

(ii) The only role assigned to the
petitioners is that after they were handed
over the left over meat, same was cooked
and served as "keema" and "biryani" in an
enclosed tent at Sanskar Farm House
which was restricted to the members of the
minority community only.

(iii) The petitioners have no
concern with Case Crime Nos. 583 & 584,
both of 2018.

(iv) Once the name of the
petitioners surfaced in Case Crime No.582
of 2018 on the basis of extra judicial
confession of accused Haroon as well as
the petitioners indicting the petitioners of
1 All. Master Vaibhav Shukla (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
359
serving prohibited meat to the members of
the congregation (minority community
alone) in a tent installed at Sanskar Farm
House,
yet
the
detaining
authority
cumulatively considers the impact of Case
Crime Nos. 583 & 584, both of 2018 while
passing the orders of detention, displays
absolute non-application of mind.

(v) The alleged disturbance of
public order on 3.12.2018, resulting in an
unfortunate death of Inspector In-charge
Subodh Kumar and one Sunil Kumar is
not attributable to petitioners as the same
was a sequel to the information disclosed
by one Yogesh Raj, an informant of Case
Crime No. 582 of 2018, who claimed to be
a witness of slaughtering of 6 cows by 7
named accused, who stood exonerated.

14. We, in the light of above
discussion, are of the considered view that
the detaining authority and the State
Government
displayed
absolute
nonapplication of mind while issuing and
approving
the
order
of
detention.
Consequently, the order dated 4.4.2019
cannot be sustained, is liable to be set
aside and the petitioners be set at liberty
forthwith.

15. The Habeas Corpus Writ
Petitions are allowed. The impugned order
dated 4.4.2019 is quashed. The petitioners
are set at liberty forthwith unless detained
in any other case.
----------
(2020)1ILR 359

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Habeas Corpus No. 38173 of 2018
Master Vaibhav Shukla(Minor)
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
R.B.S. Rathaur, Indra Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Rahul Singh 'Rana'

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ of Habeas Corpus - Custody of minor
child - Paramount consideration is the
welfare of the minor and not the legal
right of this or that particular party - In
the habeas corpus petition, the custody
of the minor child is to be taken care of -
Only in exceptional situation, the custody
of the minor (girl child) may be ordered
to be taken away from her mother for
being given to any other person including
the husband - Held, the custody of the
child is in right hands of biological
mother, who is managing affairs by
running a beauty parlour to provide
comfort, health, education and other
developments of the child required for
future developments, rather in the hands
of the grandmother, who is aged about
72 years (Para 16, 18, 23 and 24)

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition dismissed.
(E-1)

List of cases cited :-
1. Dr. Mrs. Veena Kapoor Vs. Varinder Kumar
Kapoor; AIR 1982 SC 792
2. Nithya Anand Raghavan Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) & Another; (2017) 8 SCC 454
3. Tejaswini Gaud & Others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish
Prasad Tewari & Others; (2019) 7 SCC 42

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

(1) Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and
learned counsel for the respondent No.3.