Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Rojnamcha in Mohammad Rais vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2020Matching Fragments
15- By taking in to account the sole case in which the petitioner was already in jail, the order of detention has been passed. The action of the respondent District Magistrate suffers from vice of non-application of mind and deserves to be quashed.
16- The another shocking aspect of the case is that a Rojnamcha Entry of 02/09/2020 has also been made to be the basis for passing the order of detention under the National Security Act, 1980. The Rojnamcha Entry reflects that the petitioner's brother is involved in manufacturing swords and in those circumstances it has become necessary to pass an order of detention.
17- In reply the respondents in reply to paragraphs 5.2 to 5.5 has stated as under:-
"In reply to the contents of para 5.2 to 5.5 it is submitted that on 24.08.2020 on receiving a secret information the present petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons were arrested for the offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act, the prosecution has seized four swords along with 79 sword handles from the possession of accused persons and they were arrested for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Superintendent of Police has submitted report before the Respondent No.2. The aforesaid documents reflects particularly the Rojnamcha Entry dated 30.08.2020 that the present petitioner and other co-accused persons last year on Writ Petition No.14215/2020, 14216/2020 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
In the aforesaid paragraph, it has been stated that last year the brother of the petitioner and other persons during Muharram took out a procession with swords. In case, if the brother of the petitioner and other persons took out a procession with swords last year, why the State Government has not filed the last year's Rojnamcha Entry. It appears that only in order to detain the petitioner's brother under the National Security Act, 1980 such an incorrect statement is being made before this Court and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.