JUDGMENT S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri R. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13-8-2001, the detenu was in jail in connection with an offence under Section 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and 3/11 of Animal Cruelty Act. While he was in jail in Crime No. 435 of 2001 in connection with the abovesaid offence, present detention order dated 27-8-2001 was served on him on the ground that the act of slaughtering a cow and throwing the carcass and its flesh into a well caused tension between two communities residing in its vicinity. The news was also published in some newspapers. Additional force was deployed to check the mounting tension between rival communities. It is further contended in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was frantically trying for bail which ultimately was granted to him after the passage of the abovesaid detention order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised following submissions against his detention under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act (to be referred hereinafter as NSA). The first contention is that the offence discussed above does not give rise to any threat to public tranquility. This offence directly relates to law and order. The second contention is that the petitioner was seriously offended in making an effective representation by non-supply of bail application moved in crime No. 435/2001 along with grounds of detention which was also not produced before the detaining authority. The last submission is that the representation of the detenu/petitioner was decided belatedly by the State Government. The delay as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner is of 5 days only.
4. We propose to deal with delay in the disposal of representation first. The counter-affidavit of the district Magistrate clearly implies that he had sent his representation to the Government on 4-1-02. In the Department of Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, it was received on 5-12-2001 is clear from counter-affidavit of Sri C. P. Singh, Dy. Secretary. The notes on the representation were prepared by the concerned Section on 5-12-2001 itself. Special Secretary examined the notes and the representation on 6-12-2001. It was submitted to the Secretary, thereafter who examined the same on 7-12-2001 and forwarded it for consideration by concerned authority. After due consideration, the said representation was finally rejected by the authority competent on 10-12-2001. The information of rejection of his representation was communicated to the detenu through district authority by a radiogram on 13-12-2001. It has been further asserted that the detenu was summoned by the Advisory Board. He was heard and his representation was also considered on that date by the Board. On the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, the detention was lateron confirmed by the State Government. The report of the Advisory Board was received by the State Government on 10-12-2001. Therefore, it is a proper compliance of the provisions of Section 11(1) of the said Act. It is further asserted therein that on the receipt of the report from the Advisory Board, the State Government applied itself again to the case of the petitioner in the light of the opinion expressed by the Advisory Board as required by Section 12(1) and ultimately decided to confirm the detention order dated 27-8-2001. The petitioner was detained for 12 months accordingly.
5. The detenu in response to the averments made in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the counter-affidavit simply denied these averments but did not file any evidence on record to fortify his contention. In the rejoinder affidavit in paragraph 3 a fresh assertion was taken that the District Magistrate passed the above order without applying his mind to the facts brought before him but it was not supplemented by any evidence. In the circumstances, so far as this contention is concerned, we do not find any merit therein. No delay was caused by State Government in deciding his representation. Five days only were taken in doing so. It can by no stretch of imagination be termed belated enabling us to quash the order. It is accordingly discarded.
6. Coming to the third contention that the copy of the bail application of Case Crime No. 435 of 2001 under Cow Slaughter Act was never produced before the detaining authority nor supplied to him, therefore, the averments made in the grounds of detention with regard to procurement of bail by all means is not supplemented at all by the detaining authority, we find that it too has no force. In our opinion, even if we accept this contention it will not benefit the detenu. The second ground pertaining to the activity of the petitioner in assisting the co-accused persons in causing slaughter of a cow in the night and throwing carcass and its flesh into a nearby well is more than sufficient to warrant his detention. In law if one ground amongst many referred is independently sustainable, detention is to survive. The second ground amongst the grounds enumerated in the grounds of detention cannot be overlooked. If it successfully holds its ground independently, the detention order can be maintained.
7. In these circumstances, non-forwarding of the bail application along with the report of the sponsoring authority to detaining authority did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner because his bail by C.J.M. was already rejected. It bears ample proof of the fact that efforts to come out on bail were on therefore the facts described in the grounds could not be said to be wholly without any evidence or basis. At times it is in the wisdom of the accused charged of an offence to delay his release. Making of an application before Sessions Court in our State is not practicable unless such an effort is made before Chief Judicial Magistrate first. Hence any failure to produce before the detaining authority copy of the bail application filed before Sessions Court is of no consequence and does not affect his satisfaction in any manner. Moreover if no such application was made till the passage of the detention order; it was not possible for sponsoring authority to produce the same before the detaining authority or supply a copy of the same to him. Making such an application before C.J.M. in our opinion provides sufficient proof of his attempt to come out on bail.
8. Coming to the ground No. 1 that the impugned incident does not give rise to any public disturbance or does not put in peril public order and tranquillity of the area as such we are of the opinion that even this ground, once we scrutinise ground No. 2 as mentioned in the grounds of detention we find no force in it. The activity of the petitioner inasmuch as in purchasing a cow, bringing it in the village, tying it stealthily at another villager's house amongst his cattle and thereafter stealthily taking it away, allowing it's slaughter by his Muslim companions who were nominated subsequently during the investigation is an act which would possibly inflict serious damage to public order of the area. It would certainty disturb public tranquillity of the area. Existence of harmony between people of two divergent sections of the society would be shattered. The tempers would run high. It's publication in the newspapers must have added fuel to the fire. The sentiment of the members of Hindu community was bound to be hurt. Throwing the carcass in a well with some flesh stung to it clearly indicates their malicious intention. It was done to hurt the religious feelings of Hindus. His act, therefore, would fall squarely under clause 'disturbance to public order'.
In the abovesaid circumstances, this petition lacks any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.