S.H.A. Raza, J.
1. By means of the impugned order dated June 24, 1999 the District Magistrate, Lucknow, exercising its powers under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, detained the petitioner in District Jail, Lucknow. The ground of detention discloses that on April 22, 1999 at about 3.20 p.m. one Sri Khalil lodged an F.I.R. that on the same day at about 2.35 p.m. when he was studying in B.Com. Ist year, ten or twelve students came on the spot including Deenu alias Rituraj, K.D., Brij Bhushan and others and they started forcing the complainant to go out from the class room. Some students came to his rescue. Thereafter the detenu and Deenu alias Rituraj with an intention to kill threw hand granades or bomb, which hit the wall and the channel of the gate. The bomb exploded with a noise as a result of which one Abhishek. son of Sri R. K. Srivastava was severely Injured. The petitioner and his colleagues made an effort to fire from their country made pistols, but the petitioner and his colleagues could not succeed in their effort and ran away after Issuing a threat to kill. In view of the throwing of the hand grenades or bombs within the compound of University. an atmosphere of fear and terror was created all around the campus. Public peace was disturbed and a first information report was lodged. Case Crime No. 211 of 1999 under Section 147/148/149/307. I.P.C. was registered read with Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act.
2. On 23.4.99 the Station Officer. Hasanganj when reached on the spot found an atmosphere of fear and terror prevailed all around the campus. Students and teachers were badly disturbed. Commotion spread throughout the campus. The traffic was affected and the public order was disturbed. He submitted a report to the Senior Superintendent of Police. Lucknow, on 23.6.99. according to which it was indicated that the petitioner was a man of criminal tendencies and dare devil hardened criminal and due to his criminal activities an atmosphere of terror and fear has prevailed in the campus of the University as well as in the Lucknow City. Thereafter what has been indicated in the F.I.R. the Station Officer submitted his report to the Senior Superintendent of Police.
3. On the basis of the material produced before him, the District Magistrate was satisfied subjectively to detain the petitioner under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of the Station Officer to the Senior Superintendent of Police, which was a vital material before the District Magistrate, must have Influenced the mind of the District Magistrate, to pass the order of detention.
5. The said report indicated that the petitioner was a man of criminal tendencies and was a hardened criminal as a result of which atmosphere of terror was created In the University as well as in the city. That part of the report does not find mention in the ground of detention. The human mind cannot be divided into compartments. Any material before the District Magistrate may influence his mind to arrive at a conclusion as to whether a person should be detained. The report which might have been perused by the District Magistrate before passing the order would have Influenced him to detain the petitioner. The offence which has been indicated in the first Information report as well as the report of the Station Officer relates to an Incident which occurred in the campus of the University which has been referred to herelnabove. Undoubtedly, the taw and order have affected due to the alleged act of the petitioner, but it has to be seen as to whether such a solitary act was of such a magnitude where there existed a possibility of break down of public order. The allegation that the petitioner was a man of criminal tendencies and was a hardened criminal Is not based on any material except the report of the Station Officer. On such a vague ground, no person can be deprived of his liberty. In Vasishtha Narain Karwaria v. State of U. P. and another, 1990 (2) SCO 629, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
'The above averments made in the above two letters, the copies of which are furnished to the detenu along with grounds of detention unequivocally and clearly spell out that the detenu is a hardened criminal, having a gang under his control often committing heinous crimes, that many cases against the detenuare registered in various police stations and that he Is in the habit of committing offences. No doubt, these averments are not made mention of in the grounds of detention. But can it be said that these materials placed before the authority might not have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in taking the decision of detaining the detenu. In our view, the above averments which are extraneous touching the character of the detenu though not referred to in the grounds of detention, might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority to some extent one way or other in reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the detention of the detenu. As rightly pointed but by Mr. Jain, had these extraneous materials not been placed before the detaining authority, he might or might not have passed this order. Therefore, we have to hold that the detention order is suffering from the vice of consideration of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the order. There are several pronouncements of this Court, on this point, of which we will make mention of the following decisions :
1. Ram Krishna Paul v. Government of West Bengal, (1972) 1 SCC 570.
2. Pushpa v. Union of India, 1980 (Supp) SCC 391)
3. Merugu Satyanarayana v. State of A. P., 1982 (3) SCC301.
4. Mehboob Khan Nawab Khan Pathan v. PoliceCommissioner, Ahmedabad, 1989(3) SCC 568.
6. The said pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court were relied/ upon by a Division Bench of this Court in which one amongst us was a member in Mahesh Tyagl v. State of U. P. and others. 1992 ALJ 42, wherein It was observed :
'It was vehemently argued onbehalf of the petitioner that thedetaining authority passed thedetention order afterconsideration of thecommunication received from theS.S.P., Ghaziabad, in which theS.S.P. reported that the petitionerwas a hardened criminal and thesaid fact was mentioned In thepolice report dated 27.7.90 andthe same was also mentioned inreport dated 26.7.90 submitted bythe C. O. The aforesaid reportswere passed on the informationreceived by the Station Officer ofpolice station Karimnagar. dated25.7.90 in which he stated incolumn No. 9 that accused was agoonda and hardened criminal.He further averred that heindulged himself to the criminalactivities and used to give shelterto criminals. It was furtherreported that the petitioner usedto get money by kidnapping and itwas his main business. It wasalso mentioned that the petitionerwas a man of criminal habits. Hecommitted gruesome acts. It wasmentioned In the rejoinder-affidavit that the aforesaidaverments were extraneoustouching the character of thedetenu although they were notreferred to in the grounds ofdetention but the same mighthave influenced the mind of thedetaining authority to someextent one way or the other Inarriving at subjective satisfactionto detain the petitioner. If thoseextraneous materials would nothave been placed before thedetaining authority, he would orwould not have passed the orderof detention.'
7. Learned Government Advocate referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Veeramani v. State of T. N.. 1994 SCC (Crl) 482. submitted that In the counter-affidavit, it has been positively asserted that the District Magistrate had not taken into account the antecedents of the petitioner. In Veeramani (supra), relying upon its earlier decision in Debu Mahato v State of W. B., 1974 (4) SCC 135, observed :
'But the real question is whether those materials which have just been placed before the detenu also formed basis for arriving at the necessary satisfaction and whether they thus constitute part of the grounds. In paragraph 3 of the grounds, it is clearly stated that :
'In arriving at my subjective satisfaction, I have not taken into account the bootlegging activities of Tr. Veeramani or his connection and sentence in the murder case, as revealed in his confessional statement recorded by the Inspector of Police during the course of investigation of Cr. No. 61 of 1993 on the file of the D5, Marina Police Station.
The grounds further disclose that the serious incidents of February 10, 1993 and February 11. 1993 alone formed the grounds of detention. The earlier incidents were only referred to for showing that the detenu has been indulging habitually in committing offences and to that extent all the F.I.Rs. have been referred to and the copies of the same have been supplied to the detenu and the copies of statement under Section 161 and the connected materials which were simply placed before the detaining authority and which were looked into to verify whether the contents of the F.I.R. were substantial, cannot be held to be the real material forming the basis of the grounds as mentioned above.'
8. A perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly indicate that in the ground of detention Itself, it was clearly indicated that these antecedents which have been referred to were not at all considered by the District Magistrate while passing the order ofdetention. In the instant case in the ground of detention, no such averments have been made that the petitioner was a man of criminal habits. Due to this reason, the ratio In Veeramani's case (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the detaining authority has taken into consideration extraneous material, which might have prompted or influenced him to pass the detention order. We are of the view that the detention order deserves to be quashed.
9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the detention order dated 24.6.99 passed by the District Magistrate contained In Annexure-1 to the writ petition is quashed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. This petition accordingly succeeds.