S.K. Phaujdar, J.
1. Through this writ petition the petitioner has challenged an order of the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act dated 1 -8-1997, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order was followed by the grounds of detention as well and it was stated in the said grounds that on 13-5-97 one Arvind was allegedly murdered by certain assailants belonging to the Muslim community. It is alleged that the petitioner and others gave the incident a communal colour and with a view to avenge the murder of Arvind they had stopped a bus of U. P. Roadways, punctured its tyres with knife, threatened the passengers with katta and set fire to the bus. The passengers ran here and there in a panic and in the fire not only the bus but important documents concerning the journey were burnt to ashes as also the belongings of the passengers. A substantive case was initiated against unknown persons but the name of the petitioner and others came up during investigation. The incident happened at the centre of the city and had affected movement of traffic and a reign of terror and panic engulfed the area. Passengers could not reach their destination. The people of the neighbouring localities also stopped coming out and public order was seriously affected. This incident was followed by further attacks in the houses of persons of the Muslim community and several other cases were also lodged against unknown culprits and during investigation of those cases also the involvement of the present petitioner allegedly came to light. Such incidents occurred not only on 13-5-1997 but also on the next day and public order in the locality was badly shattered. The markets were closed, roads were blocked and properties were damaged. Subsequently, a case under the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as the Gangsters Act) was also initiated against the petitioner and he was taken into custody after his surrender on 28-6-1997.
2. The grounds further indicated that on the date of the order the petitioner was in custody and he was trying for his release on bail in all the cases lodged against him and there was possibility of his being so released and there was further possibility of his acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
After being served with the notice and the grounds and being intimated that he had a right of representation, the petitioner made a prayer before the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, for supply of certain information to him. In his application the petitioner had stated that the date of examination of certain witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. be given in case Crime No. 397A/1997 under Section 435, I.P.C. He further wanted to know the dates of examination of some other witnesses in case Crime Nos. 397B of 1997,397E of 1997, 397G of 1997 and 400 of 1997. There was a further, prayer that he might be informed as to who was the witness on whose statement he was involved in case Crime No. 397C of 1997, for whose statement case Crime No. 397E of 1997 was investigated into for an offence under Section 395, I.P.C., who was the person involving him in case Crime No. 397F of 1997. It may be indicated at this point itself that the petitioner was given the copies of statements of witnesses in all these cases and his grievance so far as the statements of the witnesses was concerned, was not tenable. However the dates of examination of the witnesses were not given to him, rather the report, of the Station House Officer, as per Annexure 12 to the writ petition, indicated that the accused or the detenu had no right to know the dates of examination of the witnesses. A representation was actually preferred as per Annexure 13 to the writ petition and the representation was rejected, the report of the Advisory Board was received and the order of detention was confirmed on 27th September, 1997, directing his detention for a period of 12 months from 31-7-1997.
3. The present writ petition was pressed on the ground that the petitioner had no criminal history and there was no material to infer that he was likely to commit an offence similar to the past ones in future. It was further contended that he had not moved for bail in all the cases for 'which he was detained and there was no ground for the District Magistrate to infer that he was trying to be released on bail. It was contended by the learned counsel that failure to supply the information sought for had vitiated the detention or the continued detention of the petitioner and the learned counsel concluded, upon the materials that were placed on record, that the District Magistrate had not applied his mind and had noted mechanically on the reports of the sponsoring officers.
4. So far as the non-supply of information, we feel that in the application of the petitioner made to the District Magistrate, two distinct things were desired. So far the supply of statements of witnesses was concerned, that grievance was met and the police report indicated that the copies of the statements of the witnesses were given to him. The petitioner's grievance, therefore, would remain for the dates of such examination only. This dale could have been one immediately after the incident or quite far from it. It would be the job of the trial Court to see if for immediate or delayed statements any reliance could be placed on the testimony of the witnesses or not. That would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the explanations that would come for the delay, if any, in making the statements. The date of statements of the witnesses, in our view, could not be a ground for setting aside the order of detention as the petitioner had full knowledge as to which witnesses had spoken against him as the papers were supplied to him. In this connection reference could be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Veeramani as reported in 1994 (1) JT (SC) 350. In that case, the statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. were not supplied to the detenu and the Supreme Court held, on the facts of the case, that by non-supply of such statements no prejudice was caused to the detenu. We feel that in the instant case, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for non-supply of the dates of examination of the witnesses.
5. The only relevant point for consideration is the point of non-submission of bail application by the petitioner in all these cases. The facts on this point may now be seen. The alleged incident took place on 13th and 14th of May, 1997. The petitioner surrendered in Court on 28-6-1997. He was in custody on 1-8-1997 when the order of detention was passed, and in the grounds of detention it was indicated that not only in the cases covering the incidents of 13th and 14th May, 1997 but also in case crime No. 587 of 1997 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Gangsters Act the petitioner had been trying to get out of bail:
(AAPKE VIRUDH THANA KOTWALI MEIN MUKADMA APRADH SANKHYA587 OF 1997 DHARA 2/3 GANGSTER ACT KE TAHAT MAMLA DARJ K1YA HAI VARTMAN MEIN AAP IS MAAMLE MEIN BHI NYAYAK ABHIRAKHSHA MEIN HAIN AUR JAMANAT KARANE HETU PRAYATNSHEEL HAIN.)
In paragraph 23 of his writ petition, the petitioner clearly stated that he was an accused in ease Crime No. 587 of 1997 and he had not applied for bail in that case till the passing of the order of detention and, as such, the question of his release did not arise at all and there was no material for the District Magistrate to conclude that he was trying for bail in that case as well.
6. The reply of the District Magistrate, Sri Sunil Kumar, has come through an affidavit. In paragraph 28 of his counter-affidavit the District Magistrate stated that it was crystal-clear that 'pairvy' was being done on behalf of the petitioner to get him released on bail in all the cases and he was released on bail. There was reason to believe on the date of order of detention that he would be released on bail. He made a reference to the averments in paragraph 14 of the writ petition wherein in was indicated that the detention order was served upon the petitioner in the district jail, Mainpuri when he had already been granted bail in all the cases which were mentioned in the detention order. The learned counsel for the State proposed to infer from this reply of the District Magistrate that when in the substantive cases the petitioner had been released on bail and when in the writ petition itself be had asserted that he was released in all the cases that were mentioned in the detention order (meaning, the grounds), there was no good reasons for the District Magistrate to opine that he was trying to get released on bail. The language used in respect of case crime No. 587 of 1997 has already been quoted and translated into English, it could only mean that he was trying to get himself released on bail.
7. In this connection, learned counsel for the State took us through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra). It was a case of detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982. The detenu was already in custody and a detention order was passed on him. A question arose if such a person could be served with an order of detention, and the Supreme Court was of the view that a detention order may be validly passed if the authority passing the order was aware of the fact that he was actually in custody and if the authority further had reason to believe on the basis of reliable materials that there was a possibility of his being released on bail and that on being so released the detenu would in all probabilities indulge in prejudicial activities. The Supreme Court observed further that if the authority passed an order after recording his satisfaction, the same could not be struck down.
8. The materials on record indicate that in case Crime Nos. 397 A, 397B, 397C, 397E, 397F, 397G arid 400, all of the year 1997, the petitioner had prayed for bail and was granted bail on 5th and 15h July, 1997. It may be true that no bail application was filed on his behalf in the Gangsters Act case till 1-8-1997, but the District Magistrate was aware of the bail orders recorded in all the other cases and it did not state in the grounds that the petitioner had moved a bail application in that case as well. He simply stated that he was trying for being released on bail in that case also. His grounds indicated that one after another he was getting bail in all the cases levelled against him ('AAP UKTMAMLON MEIN LAGATAR JAMANAT KA PRAYAS KARTE RAHE'). On the facts of the case therefore, it may not be stated that the District Magistrate had no material before him that the petitioner was trying to get himself released on bail in the Gangsters Act case also. As already staled, he had never misdirected himself to a fact that there had been an application for bail by the petitioner in the Court. In our view, in the circumstances of the series of the cases levelled against the petitioner and a series of bail orders passed in the substantive cases, the District Magistrate had every reason to believe that in the last case also he was trying for bail. This decision may not, therefore, be struck down.
9. There was, therefore, no ground to hold that it was a case of non-application of mind by the District Magistrate in recording the order of detention. Accordingly, we arc unable to interfere with the impugned detention order. The writ petition stands dismissed.