Court No. - 43
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 834 of 2019 Petitioner :- Aman Saeed Alias Ahmad Saeed Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Zakir,Nanhe Lal Tripathi,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,G.A.,Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, assisted by Sri Mohammad Zakir for the petitioner, Sri Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel, for respondent no.1 and Sri Deepak Mishra, the learned A.G.A.
This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed challenging the order of detention dated 23.5.2019, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, (for short "the Act") and its confirmation by the State Government under Section 12(1) of the Act on 3.7.2019.
The grounds of detention served on the petitioner alleged that on 31.3.2019, an information was received by Officer In-charge, P.S. Kotwali, Bulandshahar that the petitioner along with Gulzar, Rafeek, Imran, Mota Sattar, Farid and Jamil @ Kabra @ Bada were found to be indulged in slaughtering of cows inside the hata (compound) of the residential premises of Gulzar, situate near Masjid Wali Gali, Bulandshahar. On police intervention, commotion ensued, petitioner along with the above named co- accused fled from the scene but for Gulzar, Imran and Rafeek who were nabbed at the spot. The crowd gathered, attempted to set free the arrested accused from the clutches of the police, followed by forcible embracing of the wives of Imran and Gulzar with the police personnel to creat an unruly scene, resulting in safe passage to Gulzar. The incident led to resentment, communal disharmony and fear in the mind of general public, affecting public order. The police recovered one knife from Rafeek and one countrymade pistol (12 bore) and 12 live cartridges from Imran. The arrested accused Rafeek and Imran confessed that they along with other co-accused persons purchased cows from one Chauhan including the ones being slaughtered in the residential premises of Gulzar, whose meat was sold in the market. Recovery of 1.5 quintals of blood-stained meat along with cutting implements was allegedly made from the scene. On the basis of above allegations, an FIR as Case Crime No.280/2019, under Sections 147/332/353/272 IPC r/w Section 3/5-A/8 of the Cow Slaughtering Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, came to be registered against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons, in which after investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 147/332/153 IPC, 3/5/8 of the Cow Slaughtering Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as alleged slaughtering was taking place within the (hata) / compound of the residential premises of one Gulzar, not in any open public place, not intended to hurt any religious sentiments, alleged disturbance would not amount to disturbing a public order as the same would be in the realm of law and order only. He further submitted that the alleged disturbance was not attributable to the slaughtering of the cow inside residential premises but was on account of the rumour being spread by certain members of the society relating to slaughtering inside the residential premises as no damage to person or public property is reported. He in support of above contention placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Saeed vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007(67) All LR 4 : 2007(1) ACR (481).
The learned A.G.A. controverted the above submissions on the premise that the slaughtering of a cow not only hurts the religious sentiments of a particular community but also has the potential to disturb the public order irrespective of slaughtering inside the house, no illegality could be attributed to the order of detention. He in support of his contention, placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Riyazuddin vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (2), Ald. Cr. R.1979.
In Saeed's case (Supra) a Division Bench of this Court had taken a view that when a few men clandestinely slaughter a cow in the secrecy of their home away from the public eye in the dark hours, perhaps for survival or for consumption of meat, such action may not by itself amount to breach of public order but when the slaughter is done in public gaze with a view to strike terror in the minds of public and to disturb communal peace, then it may amount to breach of public order.
In Riyazuddin's case (Supra), which has been cited by the learned A.G.A., from a perusal of paragraph 20 of that judgment, as reported, it appears, the act of slaughter in that case was in public gaze and the beef was being transported in vehicles for the purpose of its disposal. Further, from paragraph 27 of the judgment, as reported, it appears that number of cows were slaughtered and their body parts were scattered all around in an open place in public view. Therefore, the court, after considering all aspects, upheld the order of detention upon finding it to be a case of breach of public order.
We after perusing the entire records of the case, do not find any material to indicate that the alleged slaughtering of cows was taking place in a public place as the grounds of detention itself alleged that the slaughtering was taking place inside the (hata) / compound of the residential premises of one co-accused Gulzar. The grounds of detention do not allege that the ruckus which ensued was directly attributable to the slaughtering taking place inside the residential place of Gulzar. On the contrary, the materials including the grounds of detention indicate that the alleged disharmony / disruption of public order including religious sentiments was affected, on account of a tip off by a peeping Tom that rumours spread in the area. The protest / demonstration / resentment by the members of the majority community is only subsequent to slaughtering in the residential premises. If a peeping Tom discloses the offensive activity taking place inside the residential premises in secrecy to the outside the world, whereupon resentment / protest / disharmony ensued, same cannot be attributed to disruption of public order as it would remain only in the realm of law and order. The police is not a witness to the slaughtering inside the residential premises. They only witnessed the remains of the alleged offensive meat inside the house. The alleged slaughtering was only confined to the residential premises and known only to the persons present inside the premises, so that it is not known to the outside world. It is not alleged in the grounds of detention that any blood- stained meat pieces of the offensive meat were strewed in a public place to hurt the religious sentiments and affect breach of public order.
We are, thus, of the considered view that on the grounds alleged in the detention order, it could not be said that the slaughtering of the cows inside the house of Gulzar had a tendency to disrupt the public order and to hurt the religious sentiments. The judgment of Saeed (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The order of detention cannot be sustained which is liable to be quashed.
The habeas corpus writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 3.7.2019 / 23.5.2019 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is set at liberty forthwith unless detained in other case.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Chandra