Preventive detention must be justified by reasonable apprehension of a cognizable offence; arbitrary detention violates constitutional rights.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing this instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.07/2025, whereby the learned Magistrate has imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to furnish three bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- each from three government employees and has further directed to bind the petitioner for a period of six months.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the wife of the petitioner lodged FIR No. 368/2024 at Police Station Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, alleging commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 494, 143 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Marriage Rights) Act. It is averred that the petitioner, who is a resident of District Churu, was residing abroad at the time of registration of the FIR. Upon his return to India on 12.08.2024, the petitioner was apprehended by the police and produced before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, who enlarged him on bail vide order dated 20.08.2024.

3. Subsequently, while attempting to travel abroad, the petitioner was intercepted at the airport and handed over to the concerned police officials, namely respondent Nos. 6 to 8, and thereafter taken to Police Station Bhadra on 09.01.2025. It is alleged that under extraneous influence exerted by the complainant and her family members, proceedings under Sections 126, 135, and 170 of the BNSS were initiated against the petitioner without justifiable cause. On 10.01.2025, the petitioner was produced before the competent court and was remanded to judicial custody. The learned court concerned imposed certain bail conditions which are stated to be onerous and beyond the legal mandate, resulting in the petitioner’s continued detention till 14.01.2025, when he was eventually released on bail. Aggrieved by the said order dated 10.01.2025 and alleging illegal detention, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present miscellaneous petition.

4. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

5. At the very outset, this Court notes that the complaint submitted by respondent No. 6 does not reveal any reasonable apprehension of commission of a cognizable offence. The factual matrix indicates that the petitioner was only asked about his identity and travel purpose and allegedly gave unsatisfactory responses—such conduct, however, does not attract the preventive jurisdiction of the police or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under BNSS. The invocation of Sections 126, 135, and 170 BNSS appears to be arbitrary, extraneous, and unsupported by any material capable of justifying preventive detention.

6. The bail condition imposed—requiring sureties from three government employees—without statutory backing, and in complete disregard of the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, is shocking. The condition effectively ensured the petitioner’s detention beyond necessary limits and constitutes a denial of bail in the guise of grant. The conduct of respondents No. 4 to 8 in detaining the petitioner from 09.01.2025 to 14.01.2025, and the allegations of physical and mental torture, call for serious disciplinary scrutiny.

7. A detailed judgement has been passed by this court after eloborated discussion in the case of Pawan Gaur v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 929/2021, decided on 07.03.2025, the same has been reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 13.06.2020 passed by the ACP-cum-Executive Magistrate, Jodhpur, as well as the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Appeal No. 203/2020.

2. The brief facts of the present case is that the peti