The detention order under the National Security Act was based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, considering the likelihood of the detainee being released from custody in the near future and the nature of his antecedent activities, indicating a potential for engaging in prejudicial activities.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 3rd July, 2020 issued under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (NSA) by the Commissionerate Police, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack directing that the Petitioner Raka @ Akash @ Rakesh Behera @ Bhoi be detained in the Special Jail at Bhubaneswar until further orders.

3. The present petition was filed on 10th February, 2021. Pleadings have since been completed. This Court has heard Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel who has also filed a written note of arguments on behalf of Mr. K.C. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Assistant Solicitor General along with Mr. Satyabrata Panda, learned Central Govt. Counsel appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 Union of India and Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, learned Govt. Counsel for the State appeared for Opposite Party Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5.

4. From the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack (Opposite Party No.5), it is seen that the said detention order was served on the Petitioner on 4th July, 2020 through the Superintendent of Special Jail, Bhubaneswar. This was because the Petitioner was already in judicial custody in other criminal cases, which will be referred to later. It was opined by police that the release of the Petitioner would affect the public law and order.

5. The basis for the detention order was a detailed proposal forwarded by the Inspector-in-charge of Airfield P.S., Bhubaneswar to the Commissioner of Police on 3rd July, 2020, (which constituted the grounds of detention) in which the Petitioner was described as a hardcore anti-social involved in serious criminal cases like attempt to murder, extortion, robbery, etc. It was stated that the Petitioner is a threat to the innocent public and to society and is involved in numerous cases of damage to public/private properties and extortion. It was pointed out that members of the public were scared to report to the police about his acts of intimidation, disruption of public peace and tranquility which could not be prevented by the normal legal process.

6. Referring to a recent incident, the proposal dated 3rd July 2020 recounted an incident of 4th June 2020 in which the Petitioner and his gang members created terror at a construction work site at 'The Prestige Apartment' at Balabhadrapur under Airfield P.S., attacked the labourers with sharp cutting weapons and criminally threatened to kill them. When the gang did not find the owner, the Petitioner (who was the leader of the gang) took captive the site supervisor and threatened him with dire consequences if he did not pay 'Dada Bati' to him. An ultimatum was given to pay the extortion amount. The labourers were assaulted and warned to leave the work site immediately.

7. The proposal noted that this is not the first instance of such disruption of public peace and tranquility by the Petitioner. The proposal listed as many as 24 past criminal cases registered in the Airfield P.S. against the Petitioner under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), like Sections 294, 341, 323, 379, 427, 506, 507 read with 34 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It was stated the registration of the said cases had no deterrent effect on the Petitioner, who had developed an image of 'Dada' spreading his network in the Airfield P.S. areas and other parts of Bhubaneswar including the localities of Balabhadrapur, Botanda, Sundarpada, Pokhariput, Brahmakunda, Khetrapal and other areas of Bhubaneswar UPD. In particular, it was noted that, in the Airfield P.S. non-F.I.R. No.41 under Section 110, Cr.P.C. the Petitioner was in judicial custody since 16th June, 2020, and in the meantime he had applied for bail. It was noted that if the Petitioner was enlarged on bail, he would again disrupt law and order.

8. It is in the above background that the impugned order of detention under Section 3 (2) of the NSA came to be