Preventive detention orders are invalid if issued against individuals already in custody, as they lack grounds for action deemed necessary to prevent prejudicial behavior.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Petitioner is detenue. He has challenged order dated 8^th November, 2023 issued by the District Magistrate in exercise of power under sub-section (2) in section 3 of National Security Act, 1980. Direction thereby was for detention of petitioner until further orders. Also said in the order was, petitioner is in jail custody since 30^th July, 2023. The ingredient invoked for exercise of the power was for preventing petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

2. Mr. Dhal, leaned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate, for State and Mr. Parhi, learned advocate, Deputy Solicitor General, for Ministry of Home (UoI).

3. The writ petition has been heard on few occasions and finally today. Facts emerging are, as aforesaid, petitioner was taken into custody on 30^th July, 2023. We ascertained from Mr. Dhal, his client had had his last application for bail rejected by order dated 30^th November, 2023. We are aware that the detention order was passed prior thereto on 8^th November, 2023 and mentioned therein were, records and material facts submitted by the Superintendent of Police (SP). In that view of things we perused said rejection of bail order dated 30^th November, 2023. It was made by the Sessions Judge.

4. The bail order says it dealt with third subsequent application for bail by one other and petitioner. Report considered by the Judge was of the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) in P.S. Case no.139 of 2023 for offences punishable under sections 307/427/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Also considered by the Judge were material in the case record to show he had 15 criminal cases pending in his name. Petitioner was involved in exploding bombs in broad daylight, inter alia, to create panic in minds of the informant and his family members, to deter him from deposing against accused persons in the case on murder of his son. Prima facie, petitioner was main perpetrator of the crime. Twice earlier bail applications had been rejected by the Court and there was reasonable apprehension that the applicants may commit similar offence and tamper with prosecution witnesses in case of their release on bail. The application stood rejected.

5. From aforesaid rejection order two things are revealed. One is omission by State to have informed the Court that a preventive detention order stood issued on 8^th November, 2023 and second, the Court considered petitioner to be prima facie involved in serious offences and, in case of their release on bail, he was likely to tamper with prosecution evidence in context of deterring the informant from deposing against accused persons in the murder case. The Court had no hesitation to reject the application. On query made Mr. Dhal submits, till date his client has not thereafter applied for bail.

6. Several judgments have been relied upon on behalf of petitioner and State. They stand recorded in orders made by us earlier. We reproduce below paragraph-1 from our order dated 1^st May, 2024 and paragraphs-1 to 4 from our order dated 15^th May, 2024.

Order dated 1^st May, 2024

“1. Mr. Dhal, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, in addition to his submissions recorded earlier he adds without prejudice, even the extension order is bad. He relies on judgment 16^th August, 2023 of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no.2304 of 2023 (Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others) available at 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1003, paragraphs-42 to 44 of the