Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Sheel Nagu, CJ. and Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Parveen Alias Dada – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Others – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No.18054 of 2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 20-12-2024
JUDGMENT :
Sheel Nagu, CJ.
This petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assails the order of preventive detention passed by District Magistrate, Rohtak, on 01.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent orders of State Government approving and extending the detention.
CONTENTS & CONTEXT
2. Several grounds in support of challenge to the aforesaid are made by learned counsel for petitioner, which are delineated below:-
(i) The nature of offences registered against the petitioner are insufficient to give rise to a cause of breach of public order.
(ii) The impugned order of preventive detention is passed in violation of Section 3(5) of National Security Act, 1980 (NSA for brevity) in as much as failure of State Government to forward the order of preventive detention together with its grounds to the Central Government within a period of seven days.
(iii) The order of preventive detention is vitiated since no mind was applied to the fact that petitioner was already in custody when impugned order was passed.
(iv) The impugned order does not pass the tests laid down by the decision of Apex Court in Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Telangana and others, (2023) 9 SCC 587.
(v) There is no live and proximate link between proposal made by Superintendent of Police, Rohtak as early as on 05.03.2024 while the impugned order of preventive detention was passed by District Magistrate, Rohtak, as late as 01.05.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and final disposal.
3.1 The grounds demonstrated by State in support of impugned order of preventive detention are described below in a tabular illustration: -
Sr. No. | FIR No. & details | Brief case summary | Arrest Status |
1 | FIR No.55 dated 08.03.2023 u/s 148, 149, 307, 506, 120B IPC & Sec 25 & 27 Arms Act, PS Bahu Akbarpur, Rohtak. | Petitioner and co-accused Rahul along with 20-25 other people fired multiple bullets upon complainant Ashish. | Petitioner was arrested and granted bail by the Court. Next date is 16.01.2025 fixed for hearing. |
2 | FIR No.45 dt 14.02.2013 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Urban Estate, Rohtak. | HC Pardeep No.1582/RTK, STF Unit, Rohtak got an information from the sources that petitioner has an illegal weapon, on the information police party nabbed petitioner with 01 illegal weapon | Petitioner was convicted on 12.02.2015 by the Court of Sh. Manjeet Pal, JMIC Rohtak for a period of three years simple imprisonment. |
3 | FIR No.09 dt 05.01.2014 u/s 148/149/307 IPC & 25 Arms Act PS City Rohtak. | A group of men fired at the husband of the complainant due to dispute over a rented house. Petitioner was involved in firing bullets upon the victim. A country made pistol was recovered from petitioner. | Petitioner was convicted by the Court of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, ASJ, Rohtak on 30.08.2017 for a period of one-year rigorous imprisonment and Rs.two thousand fines. |
4 | FIR No.95 dt 25.02.2014 u/s 148/149/323/506 IPC, PS City, Rohtak. | Petitioner had beaten complainant while he was washing the car and threatened him to kill and fled away. | Petitioner was acquitted by the Court of Sh. Sanjeev Kajla, JMIC, Rohtak on 14.03.2019. |
5 | FIR No.169 dt 10.04.2015 u/s 147/149/323/341/ 506 IPC, PS City, Rohtak. | When the complainant was going towards his home, petitioner along with other 4/5 persons came and beat him and threatened to kill him. | Petitioner was convicted under Section 323, 341 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC on 09.10.2023 by the Court of Smt. Deepti, CJM, Rohtak. |
6 | FIR No.527 dt 04.09.2015 u/s 285/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act, PS City, Rohtak. | On 04.09.2015 police party received information from a source that petitioner Ishu and your associates and one other party from village Bohar fired bullets on each other and fled away in their cars. | Petitioner was arrested in the case. The case is under trial and the next date of hearing is 09.01.2025. |
7 | FIR No.189 dt 07.03.2016 u/s 307/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act, PS Barauda, Sonipat. | On 07.08.2016, complainant came at his liquor shop for cash collection. Kulbir Deshkheda along with h | |
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 ....
Preventive detention under the National Security Act requires subjective satisfaction of the authorities that the detenue is likely to disturb public order based on gathered evidence and present cond....
If a person is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being released, the rule is that the power of preventive detention should not be exercised.
The power of preventive detention is exercised to prevent and not to punish, and strict compliance with the statutory procedure under NSA is essential.
Preventive detention requires clear, compelling reasons linked to public order; mere apprehensions are insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
