Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
The petitioner has filed this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "NSA") dated 17.08.2024 and orders dated 01.10.2024, 18.11.2024 and 17.02.2025 passed by the State Government extending the period of detention for 3-3 months.
They have acted on the petitioner's instance. Accordingly, F.I.R. bearing Crime No.1042/2024 (dated 14.08.2024) was registered against the petitioner and other persons named above for the offences punishable under Section 125, 296, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Samhita, 2023 (BNS).
2.2 That on 16.08.2024, the Station House Officer of the Police Station Banganga, Zone - 3, Indore made a request to The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone - 3, Indore to initiate proceedings for detaining the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the NSA, who in turn vide letter dated 16.08.2024 forwarded the aforesaid report to the District Magistrate, Indore making a recommendation to pass an order of detention against the petitioner.
2.3 That, acting upon the report mentioned above, the District Magistrate, Indore issued a detention order dated 17.08.2024 in exercise of the powers under Section 3(2) of the NSA and ordered to detain the petitioner in Central Jail Indore.
2.4 On 18.08.2024, the petitioner was detained in Central Jail Indore in compliance with the detention order issued by the learned District Magistrate. The petitioner preferred bail application on 20.08.2024 before the learned Sessions Court, Indore in connection with Crime No.1042/2024 registered at Police Station Banganga. The said application was allowed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11056 Judge vide order dated 21.08.2024 passed in B.A. No.2762/2024. Being aggrieved by the order of detention, the petitioner submitted a representation before the appropriate authority but the same has never been decided by the competent authority.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT/ STATE COUNSEL
5. Learned Dy. A.G. appearing for the respondent/State refutes that the petitioner is a known criminal of the locality and a number of criminal cases are registered against him. In order to control his criminal activities it was necessary to detain him. It is always a subjective satisfaction of authority under the NSA Act to consider the illegal activities of the person and send him for detention. It is further submitted that the order of detention has been affirmed by the Advisory Board and thereafter the order of confirmation was passed by the State NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11056 Government. The proper procedure prescribed under the NSA has been followed, therefore, no case for interference is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed.