JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. [CASE NUMBER] filed by [ENTITY] and [CASE NUMBER] filed by [ENTITY] are being disposed of by a common order as the grounds of detention of the two petitioners are substantially the same and same arguments have been advanced on their behalf.
2. The District Magistrate, Moradabad passed an order on 15-9-95 under [SECTION] of [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for detaining the petitioner-[ENTITY] with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. An identical order was passed with respect to petitioner-[ENTITY] on 19-8-1995.
3. The detention order and also the grounds of detention were served upon petitioner-[ENTITY] on the same day i.e. on 15-9-1995 in jail as he was in judicial custody in respect of [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION], [ACT] of [ENTITY] in pursuance of an order of remand passed by a Magistrate on 15-[SECTION]-95. The grounds of detention are as follows;
(i) : Causing injury to Dr. [ENTITY] on 8-9-1993 at about 10 a.m. within town along with [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and 3 others on which Crime No. 1019/93 under Sections [SECTION], [ACT] was registered and charge-sheet had been filed on 21-10-93, case is pending in Court.
(ii) : Murder of [ENTITY] at 9.15 P.M. on 10-4-1994 by fire-arm by the petitioner along with [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] causing injury to [ENTITY] who died. [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION], [ACT] registered, charge-sheet submitted on 2-5-1994.
(iii) On 3-2-1994 at 11.30 a.m. petitioner, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] threatened [ENTITY] to pay up Rs. 5000/- on pain of killing him. [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION], [ACT] registered, Charge-sheet filed, case is pending in the Court.
(iv) On [SECTION]-12-1994 at 5.16 p.m. made a murderous attack on [ENTITY] witness of [CASE NUMBER] and [ENTITY] by a butt, [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION], [ACT] registered.
(v) On 11-12-1994 along with [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] did marpit with Rizwan Khan Crime No. 452/94 under [SECTION], [ACT] registered, charge-sheet filed on [SECTION]-2-95, ease is pending in the Court.
(vi) On 1-0-2-1995 petitioner along with 8 other persons brick batted and fired on the Police Jeep carrying Sri [ENTITY], Inspector incharge Police Station Moghulpura cuasing injury to vehicle. Crime No. [SECTION]9/95 under [SECTION] [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] registered. Matter is under investigation.
(vii) : On 29-5-1995 along with some others entered the house of [ENTITY] and fired with the intention of killing his son [ENTITY]. [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION], [ACT] registered. Investigation pending.
(viii) On the same day 29-5-1995 while Sub-Inspector Sri [ENTITY] was going to the house of the petitioner to arrest him in the above crime, the petitioner and others from the roof fired and brick batted on the police party. [CASE NUMBER] /95 under [SECTION], [ACT] registered. Investigation is pending.
(ix): On 31-5-1995 Inspector Sri [ENTITY], got a case [CASE NUMBER] registered under [SECTION] [ACT] against the petitioner, under investigation.
(x) : On 14-6-1995 while accompanied by 6 others named persons shot dead Dr. [ENTITY] at about 5.30 a.m. [CASE NUMBER] under Sections [SECTION], [ACT] is under investigation.
4. The detention order dated 9-8-95 as well as the grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner-[ENTITY] on the same day i.e. on 9-8-95 in jail as he was in judicial custody in [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION], [ACT] of P.S. Mughulpura in pursuance of an order of remand passed by a Magistrate on 15-[SECTION]-95. The grounds of detention served upon the petitioner-[ENTITY] arc exactly similar to those which were served upon the petitioner-[ENTITY] which have already been enumerated above.
5. The case of petitioner-[ENTITY] was referred to Advisory Board on 25-9-95 in accordance with [SECTION] of the Act. The Advisory Board heard the matter on 2[SECTION]-10-95 in which the petitioner also appeared. The Advisory Board gave a report that there was sufficient cause to detain the petitioner and a report was forwarded on 30-10-95 which was received by the State Government on 31-10-95. The State Govt. after examining the matter afresh and also the report of the Advisory Board passed an order under [SECTION] of the Act on 6-11-95 confirming the order for keeping the petitioner under detention for a period of 12 months.
6. The case of the petitioner-[ENTITY] was referred to the Advisory Board by the State Govt. on 21-9-1995 in which petitioner-[ENTITY] also appeared. The Advisory Board gave a report that there was sufficient cause to detain the petitioner and the report was forwarded to the State Govt. on 19-9-95 which was received by it on 20-9-95. Thereafter the State Govt. again examined the entire matter and taking into consideration the report of the Advisory Board passed an order under [SECTION] of the Act on 22-9-95 confirming the order for detaining the petitioner-[ENTITY] for a period of 12 months.
[SECTION]. The principal submission of Shri [ENTITY] learned Senior counsel is that both the petitioners-[ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were already in custody in [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION], [ACT] since 15-[SECTION]-95 and consequently they were not in a position to act in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore the detention order passed against them was wholly illegal. Learned counsel further submitted that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was completely vitiated as the same was not arrived at on consideration of relevant materials. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on [PRECEDENT], Surajpal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1986 SC 21[SECTION][SECTION], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
8. The question as to whether a detention order can be passed against a person who is already in custody in respect of a criminal offence has been recently considered in a series of decisions by the Apex Court. In [PRECEDENT], after reviewing all earlier cases including those cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held as follows:
It could not be said that no order of detention can validly be passed against a person in custody under any circumstances. Therefore the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration in the context of considering the order of detention passed in the case of a detenu who is already in jail. In the instant case the detaining authority was not only aware that the detenu was in jail but also noted the circumstances on the basis of which he was satisfied that the detenu was likely to come out on bail and continue to engage himself in the smuggling of goods. Therefore the detention was not ordered on the mere ground that he is likely to be released on bail but on the ground that the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu was likely to indulge in the same activities if released on bail. Therefore the detention order could not be quashed merely on the ground that the detenu, was in jail.
In Smt. Azra Fetima v. Union of India 1990 Cri LJ 1[SECTION]31 : (AIR 1990 SC 1[SECTION]63), the view expressed in [PRECEDENT] (supra) was reiterated and it was held that it cannot be said that no order of detention can validly be passed against a person in custody under any circumstance. The facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration in the context of considering the order of detention in the case of a detenu who is already in jail. In this case, though the bail application filed by the detenu had already been rejected, the order of detention was upheld. In [PRECEDENT], [ENTITY], J (as his Lordship then was) after reviewing the earlier authorities held as follows (at p. 1648 of AIR):
In the case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail, and (b) that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity and (3) if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing.
In [PRECEDENT], it was held as follows (at p. 22[SECTION]0 of AIR):
If the detenu has moved for bail then the application and the order thereon refusing bail even if not placed before the detaining authority it does not amount to suppression of relevant material. The question of non-application of mind and satisfaction being impaired does not arise as long as the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in actual custody.
The same question was again considered in [PRECEDENT] and it was held that if sufficient material was placed before the detaining authority and he is satisfied that there was compelling necessity for detaining the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in offending activities, the Court is not entitled to interfere with the detention order merely on the ground that detenu was already in custody in respect of a criminal offence.
9. In the grounds of detention served upon petitioner-[ENTITY], it is clearly mentioned that the detaining authority namely the District Magistrate was satisfied that in the event of release from jail, the petitioner was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, in order to prevent him from acting in such a manner it was necessary to pass the detention order. There is exactly similar recitation in the grounds of detention served upon the petitioner-[ENTITY]. Thus there can be no doubt that the detaining authority was fully aware of the fact that both the petitioners were in custody in jail at the time when he passed the detention order. It is not a case where detaining authority was either unaware of the fact that the petitioners were already in jail in connection with a criminal case or the relevant materials in that regard had not been placed before him. It is true that the detention order cannot be passed for the purpose of circumventing a bail order which may be passed in future. The object of detention is to prevent a detenu from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and not to facilitate his trial in a criminal case nor as a punitive measure. We have carefully examined the grounds of detention. Out of ten criminal cases referred to in the ground nine were committed by petitioner-[ENTITY] and [ENTITY] in a short span of 14 months between 10-4-1994 and 14-6-1995. The petitioners are involved in four eases under [SECTION], [ACT] and two cases under [SECTION], [ACT]. The grounds further show that the petitioners along with their companions fired upon Dr. [ENTITY] at 10.00 a.m. on 9-9-93 on Makbara Road in the city in which he received serious injuries in which charge-sheet was submitted under [SECTION], [ACT] besides other offences on 21-10-93 and then on 14-6-95, the petitioners along with their companions again fired upon Dr. [ENTITY] due to which he died and a case was registered under [SECTION], [ACT]. This shows that having not succeeded in killing Dr. [ENTITY] in the first instance, the petitioners made a second attempt to achieve their object. The petitioners along with their companions fired upon [ENTITY] and killed , him on 10-4-94. They fired upon [ENTITY] on [SECTION]-12-94 who was a witness in the incident of 9-9-93 in which Dr. [ENTITY] received injuries and they also fired upon one [ENTITY] on 29-5-95. Besides this on two different dates, the petitioners along with their companions resorted to firing upon police party regarding which cases under [SECTION], [ACT] were registered. The facts mentioned above show that the petitioners have tried to eliminate even those who are witnesses against them and have tried to deter law enforcing agency by resorting to firing upon police party. In the words of [ENTITY], J (as his Lordship then was) in Surajpal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SC 21[SECTION][SECTION], the offences in respect of which the two petitioners are accused of are "so interlinked and continuous in character and are of such nature" that they fully justify the detention order. In these circumstances, we are fully satisfied that the detaining authority bona fidely arrived at the satisfaction to pass an order of detention against the petitioners and the order is not vitiated in any manner.
10. Learned counsel has urged that the police report which was relied upon by the District Magistrate for arriving at the satisfaction that if the petitioners were released from jail, they would again indulge in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was not supplied to the petitioners and consequently the petitioners were deprived of their right of making an effective representation against the detention order and therefore the same is liable to be quashed. Reliance in support of this submission is placed upon a decision of this Court in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 28450/95 ([ENTITY] v. State of U.P.) decided on 4-1-96 where also the detenu had been detained by the District Magistrate, Moradabad in pursuance of an order dated 9-8-95. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the grounds of detention which was served upon both the petitioners, the complete detail of ten criminal cases has been mentioned. Thereafter, there is a statement to the following effect.
mijksDr rF;ks ls esjk lek/kku gks x;k gS fd vkids }kjk tsy ls fjgk gksus dh fLFkfr esa ,slh fdlh Hkh jhfr esa dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dh laHkkouk gS tks yksd O;oLFkk dks cuk;s j[kus ds izfrdwy fu:) fd;k tk;sa A This shows that from the ten criminal cases, details of which had been given earlier, the detaining authority was satisfied that after being released from jail, the petitioners are likely to indulge in such activities which will be prejudicial to public order. It is, therefore, apparent that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate is basically founded upon earlier activities of the petitioners which had been enumerated in the grounds and not upon the report of the police. It is not the case of petitioners that relevant material in support of the grounds had not been furnished to them. The satisfaction of the District Magistrate having been based upon their past activities detailed in the grounds of detention (ten criminal cases) it was not at all necessary to supply the copy of the police report to the petitioners. It is well settled that the copies of only those documents on which the order of detention is primarily based has to be supplied to the detenu and the detention order would not be vitiated merely on the grounds that the copies of non material documents were not furnished. See Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1[SECTION]6, [PRECEDENT], Syed Farooq Mohd. v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 159[SECTION] and [PRECEDENT].
11. No other point was urged.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, the petitions lack merit and are hereby dismissed.