# Vinod Valmiki v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1204
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-09-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4357 of 2015
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-valmiki-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43373
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

National Security Act-Section-3(3)-Detention
on ground of taking part in illegal
activities detenue already in jail-without
recording satisfaction of being enlarged
on bail can repeat offence-such omission
vitiated the impugned-order.
Held: Para-16
In the present case the detaining authority
has merely mentioned in the ground of
detention that the bail application filed by
the petitioner before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate-Ist, Ghaziabad was rejected and
thereafter the petitioner had moved his bail
application before the Sessions Judge,
Ghaziabad and there was possibility of the
petitioner's indulging in similar activities
prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order on his being enlarged on bail. He has
not
recorded
his
satisfaction
in
the
impugned order that there was real
possibility of his being released on bail
which omission in our opinion has totally
vitiated the impugned order.
Case Law discussed:
(1975) 3 SCC 198; 1990 (27) ACC 621.

## Text

1204
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
senior citizens, and their age at present is
more than 63 years and 60 years
respectively. In ordinary course they are
not expected to do such thrashing of the
deceased. They may be dealt with some
leniency. But the age of appellant Gullu is
about 37-38 years at present, and being the
husband of the deceased it was his legal
and moral duty to protect his wife, but
instead he was involved in beating his wife
to the extent that she succumbed to her
injuries.
He
deserves
appropriate
punishment without much leniency. When
we apply the settled principle of law which
has
been
enumerated
in
the
aforementioned cases, the sentence of life
imprisonment of the appellants under
Section 304 IPC appears inappropriate. In
the present case after considering the
circumstances
presented
before
the
Sessions Judge and before us during
hearing of
present case the sentences of
appellants Bal Chand and Smt. Ramwati
should not exceed more than 7 years'
imprisonment, but the sentence of Gullu
should be 12 years.
31. In view of above facts and
discussion, the order of conviction u/s 302
IPC imposed on the each appellants is
hereby modified u/s 304 IPC, and the
sentence of imprisonment for life is
modified for appellants Bal Chand and
Smt. Ramwati to rigorous imprisonment
for seven years each. The sentence of
appellant Gullu Rajbhar is modified to
rigorous imprisonment for twelve years.
With these modifications of conviction,
punishment and sentence, the appeal
stands disposed off.
32. Let the copy of this judgment be
sent to Sessions Judge, Ghazipur of
ensuring compliance.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4357 of 2015
Vinod Valmiki
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vikas Chandra Tiwari, Sri Sudhir
Mehrotra
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Brij Lal, Sri Vikas Chandra
Tiwari, Sri Vijay Mishra
National Security Act-Section-3(3)-Detention
on ground of taking part in illegal
activities detenue already in jail-without
recording satisfaction of being enlarged
on bail can repeat offence-such omission
vitiated the impugned-order.
Held: Para-16
In the present case the detaining authority
has merely mentioned in the ground of
detention that the bail application filed by
the petitioner before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate-Ist, Ghaziabad was rejected and
thereafter the petitioner had moved his bail
application before the Sessions Judge,
Ghaziabad and there was possibility of the
petitioner's indulging in similar activities
prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order on his being enlarged on bail. He has
not
recorded
his
satisfaction
in
the
impugned order that there was real
possibility of his being released on bail
which omission in our opinion has totally
vitiated the impugned order.
Case Law discussed:
(1975) 3 SCC 198; 1990 (27) ACC 621.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna
Narayana, J.)
3 All] Vinod Valmiki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1205
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State
and Sri Brij Lal, learned counsel for the
Union of India.
2. The petitioner has been detained
by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide
his order dated 20.09.2014 passed by him
in the exercise of his power under Section
3(3) of the National Security Act
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
3. The relevant facts giving rise to
this writ petition as narrated in the
grounds of detention under Section 8 of
the Act which were served upon the
petitioner along with the detention order
on 20.09.2014 while he was in District
Jail, Ghaziabad on account of his being
accused in Case Crime no. 2233 of 2014,
P.S. Loni, district-Ghaziabad are that
following lodging of an F.I.R. at P.S.
Loni, district-Ghaziabad under Section
354(B) and 506 I.P.C. by one Smt. Kishan
Kumari against one Sayeed Mohammad
alleging there in that aforesaid Sayeed
Mohammad had committed rape of her
minor daughter Rakhi, aged about ten
years, which was later converted under
Section 376(2) (D) I.P..C and Section 4
The Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act and aforesaid Sayeed
Mohammad being arrested and sent to
jail, the
petitioner
along
with
his
associates, with the object of giving a
communal complexion to the whole
incident and disturb communal harmony
started indulging in hooliganism against
the muslim community as a result fear
and terror prevailed amongst the public
causing a stampede with people running
helter-skelter leaving behind their shoes
and slippers on the road and hiding
themselves in their houses and shops by
closing the doors of their houses and
downing the shutters of their shops. Apart
from the aforesaid, the movement of
vehicles deployed for supplying milk and
vegetables to Baghpat, ambulance and
vehicles engaged in supplying gas was
totally disturbed. However the situation
was brought under control by the police
force which had reached the place of
occurrence.
4. The grounds of detention further
reveal that on 28.8.2014 the petitioner
along with his associates (about 150 in
number) with the common intention of
disturbing
the
communal
harmony
reached Sunita Vihar shouting slogans of
'Jai Sri Ram' and organised a road block
at no.2. Bus Station Indrapuri on LoniDelhi Saharanpur National Highway.
Upon being informed about the activities
of the petitioner and his companions
Gorakh Nath Yadav, Inspector Incharge,
PS Loni reached the place of road block
with his force and tried to coax and
persuade the petitioner and his associates
to lift the road block but instead of
listening to him they became agitated and
started firing at the police force and
created obstruction in the performance of
their official duties by the police officers
and the members of the police force. They
also set ablaze old tyres and wooden
benches of the shops of public by pouring
kerosene oil thereon and indulged in arson
and
looting
in
the
nearby
shops.
Government
vehicles
of
the
police
officers who had reached the spot were
also damaged. Not only this the petitioner
and his associates had pelted stones at
Mustafa Masjid and Ek Minar Masjid
situate in Mangal Bazar, Sunita Vihar 100
fit road and Saraswati Vihar (Kirti Vihar)
respectively and shouted anti-muslim
slogans which caused a commotion
forcing shop keepers to close their shops.
1206
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Fear and terror prevailed all over and
communal harmony was totally disturbed
and public order shattered.
5. People were prevented from
going to their offices and establishments
and an atmosphere of undeclared curfew
prevailed Additional forces had to be
requisitioned from other police stations
and adjoining districts after Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad was
compelled to enforce Red Scheme and it
was only after three or four hours that
situation could be brought under control
on the arrival of additional police forces.
The
aforesaid
incident
had
caused
tremendous
resentment
amongst
the
muslim community. On the basis of F.I.R.
of the aforesaid incident lodged by the
Inspector Incharge Gorakh Nath Yadav at
police station-Loni Case Crime no. 2235
of 2014, under sections 147, 148, 149,
436, 341, 336, 332, 353, 153A, 395, 397,
307 and 427 I.P.C. and section 3⁄4
Prevention of Damages to Public Property
Act
and
section
7
Criminal
Law
Amendment Act was registered against
the petitioner and his associates.
6. Grounds of detention also indicate
that complicity of the petitioner and his
associates in the commission of the
aforesaid offences was fully established
from the statements of the witnesses
recorded during free and fair investigation
of the aforesaid incident and after
completion of investigation charge sheet
was submitted against the petitioner and
all his associates under the aforesaid
offences. News of the aforesaid incident
was published in several national level
news papers. The petitioner who was in
Ghaziabad District Jail had moved an
application for being released on bail
before the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad
after his bail application was rejected by
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-Ist,
Ghaziabad and there was real possibility
of petitioner indulging in similar activities
prejudicial to the public order on his
being enlarged on bail.
7. On account of the above the
detaining authority was satisfied that
detention of the petitioner under the Act
was essential for preventing the petitioner
from indulging in activities prejudicial to
maintenance
of
public
order.
The
detention order dated 20.09.2014, grounds
of detention under Section 8 of the Act
and other relevant papers were sent by the
respondent no. 2 through a special
messenger to the State Government on the
same day which were received in the
Home
Department
of
the
State
Government on 21.09.2012. Petitioner
was produced before the U.P. Advisory
Board on 13.10.2014. After the detention
order was approved by the U.P. Advisory
Board, the report of the U.P. Advisory
Board and the record of the case were
transmitted to the State Government along
with a letter of Registrar, U.P. Advisory
Board (detention) dated 30.10.2014 which
was received in the concerned section of
the State Government on 03.11.2014. On
receipt thereof the State Government took
a decision on 07.11.2014 to confirm the
detention order and keep the petitioner
under detention for a period of twelve
years from the date of passing of the order
of detention on 20.09.2014.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the District Magistrate,
Ghaziabad has not applied his mind to the
facts of the case and the material on
record and he has passed the impugned
order in a routine manner on the report
submitted to him by the police authorities.
3 All] Vinod Valmiki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1207
The detention authority has failed to
record any satisfaction in the impugned
order that there was real possibility of the
petitioner, who was already in judicial
custody, being released on bail. Further
the material before the detaining authority
was not sufficient to satisfy him that after
being released on bail the petitioner shall
again indulge in activities prejudicial to
the public order and hence, the impugned
order which is per-se illegal may be set
aside and the petitioner be set at liberty
forthwith.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
submitted that the impugned order has
been passed by the detaining authority on
the basis of petitioner's involvement in
two incidents which had taken place on
27.08.2014 and 28.8.2014 in Ghaziabad
city
along
with
his
associates
(approximately 150 in number). The
F.I.R. of the aforesaid incident which was
lodged by the Inspector Incharge Gorakh
Nath Yadav was registered as Case Crime
no. 2235 of 2014, under Section 354(B)
and 506 I.P.C. against the petitioner and
his associates at police station-Loni,
district-Ghaziabad.
The
allegations
against the petitioner were that he along
with his associates had indulged in
activities on both the aforesaid dates
which had the effect of totally disturbing
the communal harmony and shattering
public order as they had tried to give
communal complexion to an isolated
incident which had taken place on
27.08.2014, in which a minor girl Rakhi
aged about ten years was raped by one
Sayeed Mohammad although on the basis
of the first information report lodged by
the mother of the victim Case Crime no.
2233 of 2014, was registered at PS-Loni,
district-Ghaziabad initially under section
354(B) & 506 IPC against the aforesaid
Sayeed Mohammad which was later
converted into section 376(2)(D) and
Section 4 of POCSO Act and aforesaid
Sayeed Mohammad was arrested and sent
to jail. There was no inaction or any laxity
on the part of the local police in taking
necessary action against the accused
warranting
the
activities
in
which
petitioner and his associates had indulged
on 27.8.14 & 28.8.14 which had totally
disturbed the public order and tranquility.
10.

Learned
A.G.A.
further
submitted that in the aforesaid incidents
the petitioner and his associates had not
only indulged in acts of arson and looting
but had also illegally blocked the LoniDelhi-Saharanpur highway disrupting the
movement of the vehicles deployed for
supplying vegetables and milk to Hapur
and supplying gas and ambulance services
as well. Not only this the petitioner and
his associates had fired at the police
officers and the members of the police
force, who had reached the place of
incident and tried to persuade him and his
associates to stop their activities and they
had also caused damage the government
vehicles.
11. Learned A.G.A. lastly submitted
that detaining authority had passed the
impugned order after being fully satisfied
on the basis of the material produced
before him that on being released on bail
the petitioner
may again indulge in
activities prejudicial to the public order
and the same does not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity, hence the present
writ petition which is devoid of any
merits is liable to be dismissed.
12. After having very carefully
examined the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and
1208
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
perused the impugned order as well as the
other material brought on record, we find
that the only issue involved in this writ
petition is that whether the failure of the
District Magistrate to record in the
impugned order that there was strong
possibility of the petitioner, who was
already in judicial custody on account of
his being accused in Case Crime no. 2235
of 2014, under sections 147, 148, 149,
436, 341, 336, 332, 353, 153A, 395, 397,
307 and 427 I.P.C. and section 3⁄4
Prevention of Damages to Public Property
Act
and
section
7
Criminal
Law
Amendment Act being released on bail
has vitiated the impugned order and
whether the subsequent recording of his
satisfaction that on being released on bail
there was possibility of the petitioner's
indulging in similar activities which were
prejudicial to the public order on his
being enlarged on bail would validate the
impugned order.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in paragraph 35 of its judgment
rendered in the case of Haradhan Saha &
Another vs The State Of West Bengal &
Ors. reported in (1975) 3SCC 198
observed that where the concerned person
is actually in jail custody at the time when
the order of detention is passed against
him, and is not likely to be released for a
fairly long time, it may be possible to
contend that there could be no satisfaction
on the part of the detaining authority as to
the likelihood of such a person indulging
in the activities which would jeoparadise
the security of the State or the public
order.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
laid down the principles as to when a
detention order can be passed with regard
to a person already in judicial custody in
the case of Kamarunnissa vs. Union of
India and another reported in 1990(27)
ACC 621 SC and in paragraph 13 of the
aforesaid case the The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as hereunder :-
"13. From the catena of decisions
referred to above, it seems clear to us that
even in the case of a person in custody a
detention order can validly be passed(1) if
the authority passing the order is aware of
the fact that he is actually in custody; (2)
if he has reason to believe on the basis of
reliable material placed before him(a) that
there is real possibility of his being
released on bail, and (b) that on being so
released he would in all probability
indulge in prejudicial activity; and (3) if it
is felt essential to detain him to prevent
him from so doing. If the authority passes
an order after recording his satisfaction in
his behalf, such an order can not be struck
down on the ground that the proper course
for the authority was to oppose the bail
and if bail is granted notwithstanding such
opposition to question of before a higher
Court."
15. What follows from the above is
that a valid preventive detention order
passed against a person in judicial custody
must fulfill the conditions spelt out herein
above by the Apex Court and one such
essential condition is that there should be
real possibility of the person being
released on bail.
16. In the present case the detaining
authority has merely mentioned in the
ground
of
detention
that
the
bail
application filed by the petitioner before
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-Ist,
Ghaziabad was rejected and thereafter the
petitioner had moved his bail application
before the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad and
3 All] Smt. Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Spl. Judge/A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar 1209
there was possibility of the petitioner's
indulging in similar activities prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order on his
being enlarged on bail. He has not
recorded his satisfaction in the impugned
order that there was real possibility of his
being released on bail which omission in
our opinion has totally vitiated the
impugned order.
17. The writ petition accordingly
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 20.09.2014 passed by District
Magistrate, Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.
18. Let the petitioner, Vinod
Valmiki be released from jail forthwith, if
he is not wanted in any other case. There
shall be however, no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 4714 of 2015
(Matters under Article 227)
Smt. Manju Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Spl.
Judge/A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Onkar Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
---
Constitution of India, Art.-227-Application
to with draw half of amount-invested in
fixed deposit-Accident Claim Tribunal
rejected saying ruse to withdraw the
amount by claimant-held-Tribunal ought
to have approach the problems of
claimant-who were indebted by Bank
loan-order
not
sustainable-quasheddirection to reduce the amount by
forthwith.
Held: Para-9 & 11
9.

Thus,
once
the
application
for
withdrawal of money is filed by the
claimants, the Tribunal has to apply its
mind whether it would be in the interest of
the widow, or illiterate, or minor claimants
to release the amount or not. While taking
decision in that regard, the Tribunal has to
approach the problem from the view point
of the claimants.
11. As regard the shares of petitioner no.
1, it is noticeable that there are two
demand notices brought on record by her.
The first notice dated 29.4.2014 by
Allahabad Bank requires her to pay a sum
of Rs.59,339/- as the amount due and
payable towards loan taken by her late
husband Dhamendra Mohan. The second
notice of even date refers a loan taken by
her on 22.10.2012, wherein she is required
to pay Rs.37,611/- alongwith interest.
Thus, there was sufficient material before
the Tribunal to establish that the claimants
were indebted to the bank and were in
need of money.
Case Law discussed:
(1994) 2 SCC 176; 2012 ACJ 698.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. The petitioners alongwith one Smt.
Vedvati made a claim for grant of
compensation under the provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 on account of
death of Dharmendra Mohan in a motor
accident. The petition was registered as claim
petition no. 401 of 2011. Dharmendra
Mohan, who died in a road accident, was the
husband of petitioner no.1, father of
petitioners no.2 and 3 and son of Smt.