Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jamshed Raeen S/O Rajjak Ahmad Thruogh ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18701
1 WP-17337-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 16th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 17337 of 2025
JAMSHED RAEEN S/O RAJJAK AHMAD THRUOGH NEXT
FRIEND/BROTHER MUSTAQ RAEEN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manuraj Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Petitioner has filed this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by respondent No. 2/District Magistrate Indore in case No. 5/Det./PA/2025 whereby he has been directed to be detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (NSA), 1980.
2. The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Indore prepared a report about the criminal record of the petitioner and the disturbance of peace & harmony in the society due to his presence and sent it to the District Magistrate, Indore for initiating preventive action. On the basis of the said Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 21-Jul-25 5:43:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18701 2 WP-17337-2025 report, the District Magistrate reached to the subjective satisfaction that the detention of the petitioner is compulsory under Section 3(2) of the NSA and accordingly passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner was taken into custody on 12.03.2025 and sent to jail. Petitioner was communicated the order of detention as well as the ground of detention with an advice to submit a representation against the detention. The relatives of the petitioner were also informed about his arrest/detention. The matter was immediately reported to the Home Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal vide letter dated 12.03.2025 for approval. The State Government vide order dated 21.03.2025 under Section 3(4) of the NSA has granted approval of the detention. The information about the detention and its approval was sent to the Government of India vide letter dated 21.03.2025. As per the provisions of Section 10 of the NSA, the case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board within the stipulated time. The Advisory Board gave approval of the detention and sent the report to the State Government. Under Section 12(1) of the NSA, the State Government vide order dated 28.04.2025 confirmed the detention order.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of writ petition challenging the order of detention on various grounds. During the pendency of this petition, the three months period of detention had expired and thereafter, the State Government has extended the period of detention vide order dated 10.06.2025. Therefore, out of six months, the petitioner has undergone approximately three months period of detention.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 21-Jul-25 5:43:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18701 3 WP-17337-2025 detained on the basis of four old criminal cases out of which three cases were registered in the year 2005, 2008 and 2018 and the trial has been concluded. Recently, only on 10.03.2025 another case was registered due to the disturbance caused after the Indian cricket team won the final match against New Zealand in the Champions Trophy Finals and celebrations were carried out on the streets of Mhow when the incident of stone pelting took place. The group of persons abused each other. It is not a serious offence for which petitioner is liable to be sent for detention. The incident took place in the intervening night of 9th and 10th March, 2025. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner under detention by suspending his fundamental rights. It is well settled that on the basis of past criminal activities, the provisions of National Security Act should not be invoked. If the State wants to keep the petitioner in custody, then they should oppose the bail application before the criminal Court.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that solely on the basis of last case registered at Crime No. 137/2025, the petitioner has been sent under detention. Even the said criminal case is under investigation. In the remaining cases, either he has been acquitted or the trial is pending. The incident which took place on 9/10.03.2025 has not been repeated. Therefore, there is no material to extend the period of detention after three months.
6. In case of Mallada K.Sri Ram v. State of Telangana, (2023) 13 SCC 537, the Apex Court has held as under :
''15. A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order". In this case, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 21-Jul-25 5:43:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:18701 4 WP-17337-2025 apprehension of a disturbance to public order owing to a crime that was reported over seven months prior to the detention order has no basis in fact. The apprehension of an adverse impact to public order is a mere surmise of the detaining authority, especially when there have been no reports of unrest since the detenu was released on bail on 8-1-2021 and detained with effect from 26-6-2021. The nature of the allegations against the detenu are grave. However, the personal liberty of an accused cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive detention merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding. The powers of preventive detention are exceptional and even draconian. Tracing their origin to the colonial era, they have been continued with strict constitutional safeguards against abuse. Article 22 of the Constitution was specifically inserted and extensively debated in the Constituent Assembly to ensure that the exceptional powers of preventive detention do not devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise of State authority. The case at hand is a clear example of non-application of mind to material circumstances having a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The two FIRs which were registered against the detenu are capable of being dealt by the ordinary course of criminal law.''
7. Accordingly, the period of six months of detention is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. For the remaining period, petitioner shall furnish a bond of Rs. 25,000/- before the competent authority.
The petition stands allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove and disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 21-Jul-25
5:43:19 PM