# Shoaib (Corpus) v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1164
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-17
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 714 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shoaib-corpus-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52631
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

violation of public order to the petitioner or on
account of his actions, causing him to be
incarcerated in prison under the NSA for a
period of twelve months?

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226; The National Security Act, 1980Section 3(2)- It is not for this Court to
gauge the sufficiency of reasons that
made the detaining Authority act under
the NSA. We are not a Court of appeal to
look into the sufficiency of material or its
authenticity, unless it be glaringly absurd
and come to a conclusion contrary to that
of
the
Detaining
Authority-
Petition
dismissed.
Held- Detention order, impugned in this petition,
rests on sound reasoning- There is due
application of mind by the detaining Authority as
well as the State Government to come to a
subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was
required to be detained under the NSA- The
11 All. Shoaib (Corpus) & State of U.P. & Ors.
1165
grounds of detention are well informed, where
details of acts and the resulting facts which
showed violation of public order, have been
copiously noticed by the detaining Authority-
The way the even tempo of life was affected,
has been cited with definitive instances in the
grounds of detention. The possibility of the
detenue repeating acts that may lead to further
violation of public order have also been
recorded- The subjective satisfaction, in that
regard also, is founded on valid and objective
material about information that the accused was
out to commit further acts of reprisal, not only
against the victim of the crime, but members of
the other community, at large, in order to teach
them a lesson.(Para 61 & 62)
Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and
another, AIR 1966 SC 740;Arun Ghosh v. State
of West Bengal, 1970 (1) SCC 98;State of U.P
and another v. Sanjai Pratap Gupta alias Pappu
and others, (2004) 8 SCC 591;Nenavath Bujji v
State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367

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

List of Keywords
Rule Nisi; illegal detention; Section 3(2);
National Security Act, 1980; HABEAS CORPUS;
Court of appeal to look into the sufficiency.

Case Arising From
Habeas
corpus
writ
petition
challenging
detention under Section 3(2) of the National
Security Act, 1980 by virtue of the order dated
19.11.2024 passed by the District Magistrate,
Mau and confirmed by the State Government
vide order dated 31.12.2024.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner : Mohd Naushad, Syed
Irfan Ali :
Counsel for Respondents Manish Pandey, G.A

## Text

_Characters 0–39,798 of 58,539. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39798 for what follows._

1164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ख) वादी के पि के सामियों ने यह स्पष्ट रूप से
कथन मकया मक मववामदत भूमम वादी के घर के सामने का महस्सा है
जो सहन की तरह उपयोग होता है। उस पर उसका कब्जा पुराना है।
अपीलकताट का मववामदत भूमम पर मात्र मवक्रय पत्र के आधार पर ही
दावा है। उसके घर व मववामदत भूमम के मध्य रास्ता है, अथाटत
मववामदत भूमम उसकी सहन नहीं हो सकता है। जबमक वादी के
मकान की भूमम व मववामदत भूमम की सतह का एक ही तल है
अथाटत वो एक रूपता में होने के कारण वादी के पि, मक वो उसकी
सहन की भूमम है , को बल देता है। वादी द्वारा दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य तो
प्रस्तुत नही गया परन्तु मौमखक साक्ष्य अखण्र्नीय व सतत रहा।
मजस पर मवश्वास न करने का कोई मवमधक कारण नहीं है।

(ग) मवचारण व अपीलीय न्यायालय ने पत्रावली पर
उपमस्थत साक्ष्य एवां मौमखक साक्ष्य पर मनन कर मनणटय मदया और
यह मक अपीलकताट मववामदत भूमम पर अपना स्वाममत्व मसद्ध करने में
पूणटतः असिल रहा।

(घ) दोनों न्यायालयों ने स्थापन मानमचत्र को साक्ष्य
के आधार पर त्रुमटपूणट घोमषत करने में भी कोई मवमधक त्रुमट नहीं
काररत की, क्योमक उसके कारणों का भी स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लेख मकया
गया है। ऐसा ही एक कारण है मक, यमद स्थापन मानमचत्र को साक्ष्य
माना जायें तो मववामदत भूमम का कोई भी अांश प्लाट सांख्या ७३ के
अांतगटत नहीं होगा, जो अपीलकताट के वाद से मवचररत होगा और
इस सांदभट में भी स्थापन मानमचत्र को, स्थापन मानमचत्र का साक्ष्य न
मान कर न्यायालयों ने कोई मवमधक त्रुमट काररत नहीं की है।

१६. उपरोक्त मववरण की पृष्ठभूमम में इस मद्वतीय अपील के
ज्ञापन में उल्लेमखत मवमध के प्रश्न, मवमध के सारवान प्रश्न नहीं हो
सकते है। वतटमान प्रकरण में वो प्रश्न न तो आवश्यक है, न ही
महत्वपूणट एवां न ही मवचारणीय है। आिेमपत दोनों आदेशों में स्पष्टता
है और मवमधक रूप से कोई दूसरा पि भी नहीं हो सकता है। कमथत
मवमध के प्रश्नों की आड़ में, मवचारण व प्रथम अपीलीय न्यायालय
द्वारा मदये गयें मनणटयों में तथ्यों पर मदये गये सकारण मनष्ट्कषो में
हस्तािेप मद्वतीय अपील के मनस्तारण के समय नहीं मकया जा
सकता। क्योंमक मद्वतीय अपील में मात्र ' मवमध के सारवान प्रश्नों' पर
ही मनणटय मदया जा सकता है, जो वतटमान पररमस्थमतयों में उपलब्ध
नहीं है।

१७. उपरोक्त मवश्लेषण को अगर चन्रभान (पूिव में
उलिेवित) मनणटय में मनधाटररत मवमध के सांदभट में मवचार मकया जायें
तो वतटमान प्रकरण कोई भी मवमध का सारवान प्रश्न उपलब्ध नहीं
होता है मजसें सूत्रबद्ध मकया जाये अतः वतटमान मद्वतीय अपील
बलहीन होने के कारण मनरस्त की जाती है और अांतररम आदेश
वनरस्त मकया जाता है।
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1164
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2025

BEFORE

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

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 714 of 2025

Shoaib (Corpus) ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd Naushad, Syed Irfan Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
Manish Pandey, G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the petitioner has been detained
illegally on account of a false report attributing
violation of public order to the petitioner or on
account of his actions, causing him to be
incarcerated in prison under the NSA for a
period of twelve months?

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226; The National Security Act, 1980Section 3(2)- It is not for this Court to
gauge the sufficiency of reasons that
made the detaining Authority act under
the NSA. We are not a Court of appeal to
look into the sufficiency of material or its
authenticity, unless it be glaringly absurd
and come to a conclusion contrary to that
of
the
Detaining
Authority-
Petition
dismissed.
Held- Detention order, impugned in this petition,
rests on sound reasoning- There is due
application of mind by the detaining Authority as
well as the State Government to come to a
subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was
required to be detained under the NSA- The
11 All. Shoaib (Corpus) & State of U.P. & Ors.
1165
grounds of detention are well informed, where
details of acts and the resulting facts which
showed violation of public order, have been
copiously noticed by the detaining Authority-
The way the even tempo of life was affected,
has been cited with definitive instances in the
grounds of detention. The possibility of the
detenue repeating acts that may lead to further
violation of public order have also been
recorded- The subjective satisfaction, in that
regard also, is founded on valid and objective
material about information that the accused was
out to commit further acts of reprisal, not only
against the victim of the crime, but members of
the other community, at large, in order to teach
them a lesson.(Para 61 & 62)
Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and
another, AIR 1966 SC 740;Arun Ghosh v. State
of West Bengal, 1970 (1) SCC 98;State of U.P
and another v. Sanjai Pratap Gupta alias Pappu
and others, (2004) 8 SCC 591;Nenavath Bujji v
State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367

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

List of Keywords
Rule Nisi; illegal detention; Section 3(2);
National Security Act, 1980; HABEAS CORPUS;
Court of appeal to look into the sufficiency.

Case Arising From
Habeas
corpus
writ
petition
challenging
detention under Section 3(2) of the National
Security Act, 1980 by virtue of the order dated
19.11.2024 passed by the District Magistrate,
Mau and confirmed by the State Government
vide order dated 31.12.2024.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner : Mohd Naushad, Syed
Irfan Ali :
Counsel for Respondents Manish Pandey, G.A

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

1. Shoaib, son of Aslam Khan, has
moved this habeas corpus writ petition
challenging his detention under Section
3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for
short, the NSA) by virtue of the order dated
19.11.2024
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Mau and confirmed by the
State
Government
vide
order
dated
31.12.2024. The petitioner prays that by the
grant of a rule nisi, the respondents be
directed to produce him and, after declaring
his detention illegal, he be set at liberty.

2. A First Information Report (FIR, for
short),
regarding
an
incident
dated
15.11.2024 that happened at half past six in
the evening, was lodged on 16.11.2024 at
twenty minutes past midnight by one Smt.
Sharda Devi, wife of the late Balkaran
Rajbhar, a resident of village- Badagaon,
Police Station- Ghosi, District- Mau, giving
rise to Case Crime No. 530 of 2024 under
Sections 3(5), 118(1) and 109(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR
was lodged saying that the informant's son
Sukkhu
was
proceeding
home
on
15.11.2024 when, at the Madhuban Turn, at
about 06.30 in the evening hours, he
reached near the old post office. Shoaib,
son
of
Aslam
Khan,
hit
Sukkhu's
motorcycle
from
the
rear.
Sukkhu
protested, whereupon Shoaib and two of his
associates started quarrelling with Sukkhu.
They turned aggressive and were about to
assault Sukkhu. At that point some
bystanders, present there, intervened and
avoided the situation. In the meantime,
Shoaib, who is a resident of Baiswada,
called up other henchmen of his. In a short
while, his associates arrived at the scene
and one of them assaulted Sukkhu with a
knife repeatedly, injuring him in the neck,
shoulder and inflicting serious injuries to
other parts of the body. Sukkhu fainted.

3. The informant, upon receiving
information and, others in the village,
1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
promptly moved Sukkhu to the Community
Health Centre, Ghosi. There, the doctor
opined his condition to be serious and
referred him to the District Hospital, Mau.
His condition could not be stabilized there
in consequence of which, the District
Hospital referred the victim to the Banaras
Hindu University, that is to say, the
Medical College Hospital there. The
informant closed her information with
words that her son's condition continues to
be
very
serious.
She
requested
the
registration of a case and action against the
culprits.

4. The petitioner has come up with a
case that after registration of the FIR, the
Investigation
Officer
commenced
investigation, recording the statement of
the informant Smt. Sharda Devi on
16.11.2024, under Section 180 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
She supported her case in the FIR. The
Investigating
Officer
recorded
a
supplementary statement of the informant
under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on 23.12.2024
where, for the first time, the name of the
co-accused, Arshalan and Danish came to
light. In her statement, she assigned the role
of assault by knife to Danish and Arshalan.

5. The Investigating Officer proceeded
to record the statement of the victim
Sukkhu Rajbhar on 18.01.2025 where he
said that on 15.11.2024, at 06.30 in the
evening hours, he was returning home from
the bazar where he had taken his niece. As
he reached the Madhuban Turn, Shoaib
Khan
proceeded
from
the
opposite
direction, along with two of his associates,
riding a motorcycle and hit the victim's
motorcycle. The victim has said that when
he asked them the cause for the unnecessary
bump to his vehicle, the three riders abused
him. In the meantime, a multitude of people
gathered on the spot. Shoaib called his other
henchmen, that is to say, Danish Khan and
Arsalan, who arrived on the scene and beat up
the victim. All of a sudden, in order to do him to
death, the said persons assaulted the victim with
a knife blow to his neck injuring him. He was
writhing in pain when the accused, abusing him
and extending death threats, made good their
escape from the scene of crime. During further
investigation, the Police showed the recovery of
the offending knife from Arshalan's possession
along with a motorcycle key.

6. The petitioner's bail application was
rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide
order dated 27.02.2025 but he was enlarged on
bail vide order of 5th May, 2025 passed by this
Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
12028 of 2025.

7. The Station House Officer of the police
station concerned and the Circle Officer
sponsored the petitioner's detention under the
NSA, reporting a case of breach of public order.
By a report dated 17.11.2024, annexing
therewith necessary material, the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Mau forwarded the
recommendation to the Superintendent of
Police, also on 17.11.2024. The Superintendent
of Police, Mau recommended the case to the
District Magistrate for a preventive detention
under the NSA on 18.11.2024. The District
Magistrate proceeded to pass the order of
detention on 19.11.2024 under Section 3(2) of
the NSA. Along with the order of detention, the
petitioner was supplied the grounds of
detention, also dated 19.11.2024. The grounds
supplied to the petitioner indicated his remedies
against the detention order under the provisions
of the NSA.

8.
The
petitioner
submitted
a
representation against the order dated
19.11.2024 on 30.12.2024. Though, it is
11 All. Shoaib (Corpus) & State of U.P. & Ors.
1167
averred in paragraph no. 17 of the writ
petition that the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 30.12.2024 to "higher
officials" against the detention order dated
19.11.2024, said to be annexed as annexure
no. 9 to the writ petition, but the said
document is not at all annexed. In fact,
there is no document annexed or even
index marked Annexure no. 9 or dated
30.12.2024, in the writ petition paper book.

9. As it appears from the record, the
order of detention, made by the District
Magistrate, was confirmed by the State
Government under Section 12(1) of the
NSA, upon receipt of the Advisory Board's
report, directing the petitioner to be
detained for a period of twelve months with
effect from 19.11.2024.

10. Aggrieved, this habeas corpus writ
petition was instituted on 30.07.2025 and
defects were removed on 08.08.2025. It
came up before the Court on 14.08.2025
when the learned Additional Government
Advocate was granted two weeks' time to
file a counter affidavit, ordering the matter
to be laid as fresh again on 01.09.2025. On
01.09.2025, two weeks' further time was
granted
to
file
a
counter
affidavit,
adjourning
the
matter
as
fresh
to
22.09.2025. On 22.09.2025, a counter
affidavit was filed on behalf of the District
Magistrate which was taken on record and
the matter adjourned to 13.10.2025. On
13.10.2025, when the writ petition came
up, this Court noticed that the Jail
Superintendent,
Mau
had
not
been
impleaded. Accordingly, the petitioner was
permitted to implead the said respondent
during the course of the day. A counter
affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of
U.P. which was taken on record. The
District Magistrate's counter affidavit,
having already been filed on 22.09.2025,
this Court proceeded to admit the writ
petition to hearing and issued rule nisi
returnable on 28.10.2025.

11. The petitioner was granted two
weeks' time to file rejoinders to the counter
affidavits filed on behalf of the District
Magistrate and the State Government.
When the writ petition came up on
28.10.2025, a counter affidavit was filed by
the Union of India, which was also taken
on record. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner waived his right to file a
rejoinder to the Union's counter affidavit.
The matter being ready, we proceeded to
hear it on 28.10.2025 reserving judgment.

12. Heard Mr. Syed Irfan Ali, learned
Counsel for the petitioner in support of this
petition, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2,
3 and 5, and Mr. Manish Pandey, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union
of India.

13. It is argued by Mr. Syed Irfan Ali,
learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was arrested in connection with
Case Crime No. 530 of 2024 under
Sections 3(5), 118(1) and 109(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police
Station- Ghosi, District- Mau, lodged
against him and two unnamed offenders
whose names surfaced during investigation.
The petitioner applied for bail which was
granted by this Court vide order dated
05.05.2025.

14. It is urged on behalf of the
petitioner by learned Counsel that when the
petitioner applied for release, the fact was
brought to his notice that he had been
detained under Section 3(2) of the NSA
vide
orders
dated
19.11.2024
and
1168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
31.12.2024, in consequence of which he
would have to remain incarcerated in
prison for a period of twelve months,
reckoned with effect from 19.11.2024.

15. It is pointed out that the Police
have submitted a report dated 15.11.2024,
saying that the incident, which took place
leading to the FIR against the petitioner,
lead a retaliatory mob/group of people to
enter the hospital where the injured Sukkhu
and the petitioner Shoaib were both
receiving medical treatment. The mob
disturbed the hospital by ransacking it,
breaking the furniture and window panes.
The Police registered Case Crime No. 532
of 2024, under Sections 132 & 3(5) of the
Bharatiya
Nyaya
Sanhita,
2023
and
Sections 3(a) & 3(b) of the Uttar Pradesh
Medicare Service Persons and Medicare
Service.
Institutions
(Prevention
of
Violence and Damage to Property) Act,
2013. The said FIR, at the instance of the
Police was registered against two hundred
unknown offenders.

16. It is submitted that the petitioner
had nothing to do with anything adversely
affecting public order, but, it was the other
way round, as the FIR lodged by the Police
would show. It is next emphasised that the
FIR lodged by the Police shows that the
petitioner Shoaib and Sukkhu were both
injured and receiving treatment when the
hospital where they were admitted was
attacked by a mob. There is no allegation in
the said FIR about Shoaib leading a mob to
do violence of any kind. Therefore, there
can
be
no
case
of
public
order
compromised by or at the instance of the
petitioner.

17. It is also submitted by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that according to
the FIR lodged by the Police, there was no
damage to public property, apart from some
vehicles damaged by the mob. There are
several C.C.T.V. footage which would show
that, at no stage, the petitioner or his family
members are seen provoking the mob to
attack and subvert public order.

18. It is next submitted by learned
Counsel for the petitioner that due to
registration of a single crime, in connection
with which he was already in police custody
and taken to the hospital for treatment, the
Police have submitted a false report
attributing violation of public order to the
petitioner or on account of his actions,
causing him to be incarcerated in prison
under the NSA for a period of twelve months.

19. It is also said on the petitioner's
behalf, by the learned Counsel, that he is a
poor labourer with no influence in society.
He was himself injured in the violence which
took place on the road at the hands of a mob
alleged to have been collected or organized
by the petitioner. The Police report,
sponsoring the petitioner's detention, is
absolutely illegal.

20. It is pointed out by learned Counsel
for the petitioner that the first incident took
place on 15.11.2024 at 6.30 p.m. where the
FIR was lodged on 16.11.2024, at twenty
minutes past midnight. The second FIR, in
relation to mob violence, was lodged against
two hundred unknown persons on 16.11.2024
at fifteen minutes past seven in the evening.
The petitioner was taken into custody by the
Police in the evening of 15.11.2024 but his
arrest has been shown on 19.11.2024,
illegally. The petitioner says that he has
already spent eleven months nine days in jail.

21. It is also pointed out by learned
Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
has clean antecedents, except two cases
11 All. Shoaib (Corpus) & State of U.P. & Ors.
1169
which have been lodged against him. There
is no recovery from his person or
possession or at his pointing out, showing
his complicity in the crime.

22. In the return filed on behalf of the
District Magistrate, it is averred that the
offence
committed
by
Shoaib
on
15.11.2024 disrupted public order and there
was
a
possibility
of
the
petitioner
committing further criminal acts which
would adversely impact the maintenance of
public order. Therefore, in order to prevent
him from committing acts that would
adversely affect the maintenance of public
order, the detention order dated 19.11.2024
was passed by the District Magistrate under
Section 3(2) of the NSA. The detention
order was sent to the State Government
where, after necessary advice, it was
confirmed vide order dated 31.12.2024. It
is averred in paragraph no. 25 that the
petitioner was informed of the detention
order dated 19.11.2024 and his right to file
a representation against the detention order
to the detaining Authority as well as the
Advisory Board, besides the Central
Government setting forth the calendar of
events relating to the petitioner's detention.

23.
In
his
return,
the
District
Magistrate has averred in paragraph nos. 4
to 13 that the detention order was passed on
19.11.2024 and served upon the detenue in
jail. On 19.11.2024 itself, the grounds of
detention were served upon the detenue in
jail as well, in accordance with Section 8 of
the NSA. The detention order and the
grounds of detention were sent to the State
Government for approval on 19.11.2024
and also to the Advisory Board on the said
date. The State Government gave its
approval on 27.11.2024 and it has been
communicated to the detenue on the same
day. The detention order was sent to the
Central Government, together with the
grounds, also on 19.11.2024. The District
Magistrate and the State Government
forwarded the matter to the Advisory Board
on 19.11.2024.

24. The Advisory Board gave its
opinion to the State Government on
27.11.2024. After receipt of the Advisory
Board's opinion, the State Government
confirmed
the
detention
order
on
31.12.2024 for a period of twelve months
from the date of detention. The detenue's
representation,
made
to
the
District
Magistrate on 13.12.2024, was decided on
the same day. His representation to the
State Government dated 13.12.2024 was
rejected on 24.12.2024. The detenue's
representation to the Central Government
dated
13.12.2024
was
rejected
on
01.01.2025.

25. In the State's counter affidavit
filed by Chandra Bhan Maurya, an Under
Secretary to the State Government in the
Department of Home (Confidential), it is
stated that the detention order, together
with the grounds, were forwarded by the
District Magistrate vide his letter dated
19.11.2024 and were received by the State
Government
on
20.11.2024.
After
examining all aspects of the matter, in
careful detail, the Government approved
the detention order on 27.11.2024. The
approval
was
communicated
to
the
petitioner through the district Authorities
by the State Government's radiogram and
letter, both dated 27.11.2024 that is within
twelve days from the date of detention, as
required by Section 3(4) of the NSA.

26. It is next submitted that a copy of
the detention order, together with the
grounds and all other relevant documents,
received from the District Magistrate, Mau,
1170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were sent to the Central Government vide
letter dated 27.11.2024 within seven days
from the date of approval by the State
Government as required under Section 3(5)
of the NSA. There is thus no breach of the
provisions of Section 3(4) or 3(5) of the
NSA.

27. The State's counter affidavit next
details the fact that the petitioner was
detained under the NSA on 19.11.2024 that
is on the date of service of the detention
order upon him. His case was referred to
the U.P. Advisory Board (Detentions),
Lucknow by the State Government by
forwarding the detention order, grounds of
detention and all other related papers on
27.11.2024 well within three weeks from
the date of his actual detention, as required
vide Section 10 of the NSA. The
petitioner's
representation
dated
13.12.2024,
along
with
para-wise
comments, was received in the concerned
Section of the State Government on
16.12.2024, accompanied by a letter of the
District Magistrate dated 13.12.2024. The
State Government sent copies of the
representation and para-wise comments
thereon to the Central Government and to
the U.P. Advisory Board vide separate
letters both dated 16.12.2024.

28. It is averred that the concerned
Section of the Home Department of the
State
Government
examined
the
representation on 17.12.2024. The Under
Secretary exmined the representation on
18.12.2024 and the Joint Secretary on
19.12.2024.
The
Special
Secretary
scrutinized
the
representation
on
20.12.2024, subsequently, the Secretary to
the State Government examined it on
23.12.2024. Finally, the Additional Chief
Secretary
(Home)
examined
the
representation also on 23.12.2024. The file
was
then
submitted
to
the
higher
Authorities for final orders of the State
Government. After due consideration, the
said representation was rejected by the
State Government on 24.12.2024. This
information was communicated by the
State Government to the petitioner through
the District Authorities vide radiogram
dated 26.12.2024. It is asserted in the State
Government's return that the petitioner's
representation
has
been
dealt
with
expeditiously at every stage.

29. It is further asserted that the
Advisory
Board,
vide
letter
dated
13.12.2024,
informed
the
State
Government that the petitioner's case
would be taken up for hearing on
18.12.2024 and the petitioner be informed
that if he desires to attend the hearing
before the Board, along with his next friend
(non-Advocate), he could do so and be
allowed
to
do
so.
The
fact
was
communicated to the petitioner through the
District
Authorities
vide
letter
dated
13.12.2024. The petitioner appeared for
hearing before the Advisory Board on the
date fixed. The Advisory Board, after
hearing the petitioner in person, as well as
the Government officials sent their report
expressing opinion that there is sufficient
cause to order preventive detention under
the NSA. The said report and records were
received in the concerned Section of the
State Government on 23.12.2024 vide a
letter of the Registrar, U.P. Advisory Board
dated 20.12.2024 well within seven weeks
from the date of detention of the petitioner,
as provided in Section 11(1) of the NSA.

30. It is further averred that the State
Government, once again, examined the
matter afresh, along with the opinion of the
Advisory Board and took a decision to
confirm the detention order and, also,
11 All. Shoaib (Corpus) & State of U.P. & Ors.
1171
directed the petitioner to be kept in
detention for a period of twelve months
from the date of his actual detention that is
19.11.2024. Accordingly, the orders of
confirmation, ordering the detention for an
entire period of twelve months, were
passed by the State Government on
31.12.2024 which were communicated,
both through radiogram and letter on the
said date to the petitioner.

31. In the rejoinders that have been
filed to the two counter affidavits on behalf
of the District Magistrate, there is no case
of unexplained delay in confirmation or
approval of the detention order by the
various Authorities under the NSA or the
decision of the detenue's representations.

32. In the counter affidavit, filed on
behalf of the Central Government by
Meena Sharma, an under Secretary to that
Government, it is stated that no copy of the
representation dated 30.12.2024 has been
received by the concerned Section in the
Ministry of Home Affairs so far. However,
a copy of an undated representation
(attested
by
the
Jail
Authority
on
13.12.2024), preferred by the detenue, was
considered and request for revocation of
the detention order dated 19.11.2024
rejected by the Central Government. This
information was communicated to the
detenue, along with concerned Authorities,
vide wireless message dated 01.01.2025.
The entire schedule of various steps taken
regarding
receipt,
consideration
and
decision of the petitioner's representation
are indicated in paragraph nos. 4(I) to
4(VIII) of the Central Government's return
as follows:

"I.
A
copy
of
undated
representation (attested by jail authority on
13.12.2024) of the detenu along with
parawise comments of the detaining
authority dated 13.12.2024, duly forwarded
by the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide
letter dated 16.12.2024 was received in the
section concerned of Ministry of Home
Affairs on 27.12.2024.

II. The representation of the
detenu along with parawise comments of
the detaining authority was examined at the
section level and thereafter, put up to the
Under Secretary on 27.12.2024.

III. Thereafter, there was an
intervening
period
of
two
days
on
28.12.2024 and 29.12.2024 being Saturday
and Sunday.

IV. The Under Secretary with her
comments forwarded the file to the Deputy
Secretary on 30.12.2024.

V. The Deputy Secretary after
examining the file forwarded the same to
the Joint Secretary on 30.12.2024.

VI. The Joint Secretary after
consideration and examining the file
forwarded the same to the Union Home
Secretary on 31.12.2024.

VII. The Union Home Secretary
having carefully gone through the material
on record, including the order of detention,
the
grounds
for
detention,
the
representation of the detenu and the
comments of the detaining authority/State
Government thereon concluded that the
detenu had failed to bring forth any
material
cause
or
grounds
in
his
representation to justify the revocation of
the order by exercise of the powers of the
Central Government under Section 14 of
the National Security Act, 1980. He,
therefore, rejected the representation and
1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sent the file back to the Joint Secretary on
31.12.2024.

VIII. The file reached the section
concerned through aforesaid level on
01.01.2025. Accordingly, the detenu and
the authorities concerned were informed
vide
Wireless
Message
No.
II/15028/38/2024-NSA dated 01.01.2025.
A copy of Wireless Message is enclosed as
Annexure CA-1 to this counter affidavit."

33. The opportunity to file a rejoinder
affidavit to the Central Government's return
has been waived on behalf of the petitioner
and no grievance has been made either,
during the hearing, that there has been any
unexplained delay in forwarding the
petitioner's representation to the Central
Government by the State Authorities or its
consideration and decision by the Central
Government.

34. A perusal of the counter affidavit,
filed by the Central Government, shows
that there is apparently no unexplained
delay in consideration for decision of the
petitioner's
representation
against
his
detention under the NSA.

35. The crux of the petitioner's
submission, against the order of detention,
is that this was a case of a simple breach of
law and order and not public order at all. It
was a solitary incident which did no more
than result in violation of the law and order,
regarding which an FIR was lodged against
the
petitioner
where,
after
due
consideration, bail was granted by this
Court. It is submitted that by clamping the
order of preventive detention, the petitioner
cannot be deprived of his liberty.

36. The learned Additional Government
Advocate, on the other hand, has stated that
this is a case of violation of public order as
would appear from the grounds of detention.

37. We have perused the grounds of
detention and considered the submissions
advanced by learned Counsel for parties.

38. A perusal of the grounds of detention
show that Shoaib Khan assaulted Sukkhu over
a minor altercation resulting from an accident
- a slight bump to the motorcycles ridden by
them. After calling to his aid, two of his
associates, Arshalan and Danish, Sukkhu was
repeatedly stabbed on his neck and shoulder,
leading to the latter sustaining grievous injury.

39. The grounds of detention further say
that while Sukkhu was being given medical
treatment in the hospital, a multitude of
people, siding with Shoaib, landed at the
hospital. The men from Sukkhu's village also
arrived at the Community Health Centre,
Ghosi in large numbers and sharp words were
exchanged between the two. In no time, the
crowd turned belligerent, indulging in a free
fight and stone pelting. This led to a
pandemonium in the hospital. The patients and
those who had come to take care of them were
struck by fear so much so that they fled the
hospital leaving behind their footwear. On
account of violence by the crowd, the doors
and windows of the hospital ward, labour
room and the operation theatre, the laboratory
windows and doors, together with the doors
and windows of other rooms, besides valuable
equipments were all damaged. Due to the
aforesaid incident, the patients are not coming
over to the hospital out of fear, leading to
medical services available to the sick being
obstructed. Shopkeepers, who had their shops
at the gate of the hospital also took to their
heels.

40. Looking to the aggression of both
sides, on the spot, additional forces had to
11 All. Shoaib (Corpus) & State of U.P. & Ors.
1173
be summoned, who tried to pacify the
warring factions leading to policemen
sustaining injuries. After much effort, the
crowd was persuaded to return and the
injured Sukkhu was referred to the district
hospital for treatment.

41. Upon their return from the
hospital, the belligerent crowd collected at
Badagaon (Bharauti) in front of the Ghosi
Dohrighat main road, numbering a two
hundred to two hundred fifty strong,
blocking the main road. This information
was passed on to the control room and the
higher officials. The Incharge of the police
station, along with the force available,
moved from the Community Health Centre
to Badagaon where they saw the crowd in
strong numbers blocking the main road,
leading to the general public, women and
children suffering great inconvenience. The
women and children were restive because
of the blocked road. The Police, upon
reaching there, parked their vehicle on one
side of the road and got about their task of
persuading members of the crowd to
relieve the road obstruction. This led the
crowd to turn belligerent. They shouted
slogans against the Executive Magistrate
and the Police force present, at 08.45 p.m,
and hurled abuses at the police party. They
resorted to stone pelting and damaged the
police
vehicle
from
Police
Station-
Copaganj bearing registration no. UP 54 G
0281 and another police vehicle from
Police
Station-
Madhuban,
bearing
registration no. UP 32 EG 3204 and still
another from Police Station- Sarailakhansi,
bearing registration no. UP 54 G 0283.
These vehicles were damaged employing
stones that the crowd had at hand.

42. The Station House Officer, Police
Station Copaganj, Naval Kishore and the
Constable accompanying him and the Circle
Officer,
Ghosi
and
the
police
men
accompanying him, were all injured in the mob
violence. There was complete mayhem on the
spot. The public in the locality, including
shopkeepers,
took
to
their
heels.
The
shopkeepers pulled down their shutters and
those living in the locality, closed doors. The
blocked public road led women and children
held back there to wail. The belligerents were
somehow controlled by the available police
force. Nevertheless, the crowd damaged the
nearby shops, religious places and public
property by hurling brick bats, all leading to
vitiation of public order. Considering the
prevalent situation and to bring it under control,
police forces had to be deputed at crossings and
tri-junctions, particularly at religious and
important sites. The police, for the purpose,
were divided into small pickets, sharing their
strength with the Provincial Arms Constabulary
(PAC, for short) ranks. The entire sensitive area
had to be constantly patrolled by the forces in
order to restore peace. The belligerent crowds
and the public, in general, had to be appealed by
the forces to maintain peace. It was after great
effort that the situation could be brought under
control. Considering the sensitivity of the
locale, police force, in strong numbers, had to
be deployed to maintain constant vigil.

43. It is recorded in the grounds of
detention that Case Crime No. 531 of 2024,
under Section 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109,
115(2), 121(1), 125, 126(2), 131, 132, 324(4),
352 & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, Section 7 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 2/3 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984, was registered against Upendra and thirty
eight others, besides two hundred fifty to three
hundred unknown offenders at Police Station-
Ghosi, District- Mau on 16.11.2024.

44. It is mentioned in the grounds,
further,
that
the
aforesaid
incident
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compelled
widespread
deployment
of
forces where the Station House Officer,
Police Station- Dohrighat, Station House
Officer, Police Station- Copaganj, Station
House Officer, Police Station- Madhuban,
together with their forces, besides Police
from the other stations of the district and
the PAC, all had to be deployed to restore
law and order. The Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Azamgarh Range
ordered two Circle Officers and five
Station House Officers, together with their
force and men, numbering fifty two from
other police stations, besides five Sections
of the PAC to be deployed to restore order.

45. It is also noted in the grounds of
detention that in the assault by the crowd,
Circle Officer, Ghosi, Dinesh Dutt Mishra
and Station House Officer, Ghosi, Raj
Kumar Singh, besides Station House
Officer, Naval Kishore, Constable Rahul
Kumar, Constable Sadre Alam, Constable
Avnish Yadav, Constable Arpit, Constable
Vikas Kumar, Constable Vimlesh Kumar
Tiwari
and
Constable
Ajay
Kumar
sustained grievous injuries, apart from the
three police vehicles that were damaged in
the rampage.

46.
After
the
incident
dated
16.11.2024, there was widespread reporting
of the riot by Hindi dailies such as Amar
Ujala, Hindustan (Varanasi edition), Aaj,
Rashtriya
Sahara
(Varanasi
edition),
covering the widespread mayhem and riot
that happened at Mau, leading to public
order being torn asunder. The news were
also propagated through electronic and
social media.

47. The petitioner's act, which led to
precipitation of all these events, also caused
members of the Hindu community to be
enraged, leading them to riot at Bharauti
where members of the police force received
injuries,
besides
the
vehicles
being
damaged.

48.
The
grounds
say
that
the
petitioner's action have led to such
widespread disturbance that the public
order has been adversely affected and
vitiated. A written information had been
received
from
the
Superintendent,
Community
Health
Centre,
Ghosi
addressed to the Station House Officer,
Police Station- Ghosi saying that on
account of the incident dated 15.11.2024,
the
officials
and
employees
of
the
Community Health Centre are in great fear.
They apprehended that there could be
outbreak of riot any time and this is leading
to the officers and employees not being
available to the Community Health Centre
for
discharging
their
duties.
The
Superintendent requested the deployment
of security forces within the Community
Health Centre campus.

49. After the said incident, the
Principals of schools, such as the Shabnam
Children English School, Ghosi, Mau, the
Saint Novert School Ghosi, Mau and the
Little Flower Children School Bagawan,
Ghosi, Mau, addressed applications to the
District Level Authorities that on account
of the riot, the parents and guardians of
children who study in these schools are
very scared to send them forth. It is said in
the grounds that it is seriously apprehended
that a riot may erupt anytime on account of
the wanton elements vitiating public order.

50. The grounds further mention that
Beat Constables, Narendra Nishad and
Anand Pandey had reported regarding the
incident that during their beat duties,
members of the Muslim community had
gathered there and saying that Shoaib was
11 All. Shoaib (Corpus) & State of U.P. & Ors.
1175
planning to flee in order to escape attention
of the Police and the Administration,
organize his associates and planning to do
something big. This planning was done to
teach members of the Hindu community a
lesson with rumours being rife that Shoaib
was saying that nothing had happened so
far and a lot had yet to be done. It was also
reported that Shoaib and his associates
would say that the Administration can
bring them no harm.

51. It is then recorded in the grounds
that in order to place the petitioner under
arrest, in connection with the crime, a team,
comprising the Additional Superintendent
of Police, Ghosi, besides other officers, was
constituted on 16.11.2024. The incident
had led to such widespread vitiation of
public order that shopkeepers had closed
shops and the public, in general, had
stopped moving on the roads. Parents and
guardians of children were not sending
forth their wards to attend school. Working
men and women stopped attending their
duties and the sick were not able to reach
hospital. They were lying behind closed
doors in their homes. All these clearly
show that public order had become a
casualty. In order to restore order, Police
force, in strong numbers, had to be
deployed constantly.

52. It is also recorded in the grounds
that confidential information had been
gathered from some supporters of the
petitioner that during period that the
petitioner was fleeing justice, he had
sworn to kill Smt. Sharda Devi and
witnesses of the case against him.
Shoaib's supporters were roaming the
area extending threats on account of
which there was an atmosphere of fear
prevailing, leading to vitiation of public
order, constantly.

53.