RAM BAHADUR versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRETARY HOME DEPTT. OF U.P. SHASAN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Ram Bahadur v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Home Deptt. Of U.P. Shasan - HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 2973 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8177 (1 May 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

 Court No. 36

                    Habeas Corpus Writ Petition no.  2973 of  2007

Ram Bahadur  . . . .. . . . . . . .  . .  . . .   . .   . . . . . . . .  .Petitioner.

                                 Versus

State of U.P.  and others  . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .  Respondents.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ----

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

An incident of firing  took place on 14.8.2006 inside a Bus at Farrukhabad.  In this incident one person died and one person along with two other children was injured as a result of  firing allegedly done by the petitioner. Thereafter District Magistrate, Farrukhabad  passed detention order on 3.10.2006 against the petitioner  under the National Security Act. The present petition has been filed to challenge that order.

We have heard learned  counsel for the petitioner and  the learned A.G.A. for the respondents.

The incident in question took place inside a Bus and it amounts to disturbance of  public order. The detention order passed on this  ground cannot  be deemed to be vitiated. The District Magistrate has also recorded a finding that there is a likelihood  that in case  the petitioner is granted bail, he will indulge himself in similar activities. Considering this aspect of the case, there is no illegality in the detention order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that  representation of the petitioner  has not been decided by the Central Government. Counter affidavits have been filed by  the Central Government  as well as  the District Magistrate  and the State of U.P. wherein it has been stated that no representation had been filed by the petitioner before the Central Government and the representation meant for the Advisory Board has been rejected on merits after consideration of the entire facts and circumstances. There is no illegality in that rejection order  also.

The writ petition has, thus, no merit and it is dismissed.

Dated:1.5.2007

RPP.

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.