IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, SANGEETA CHANDRA, JJ.
Munna Alias Shahanwaz Thru. Father Shabban Khan - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 346 of 2022
Decided On : 22-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition with multiple prayers (Para 1) |
| 2. sequence of violent events leading to detention (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. events and communications regarding the detention order. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. petitioner's arguments against the detaining authority's grounds. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. petitioner's claim of wrongful implication and lack of urgency. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. state's defense of the detention order's validity. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. arguments on communal tensions stemming from accused actions. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 8. the process and communication regarding detention order approval. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. central government's role in detention review process. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 10. addressing the procedural aspects of detention reviews. (Para 29) |
| 11. discussion on public order versus law and order. (Para 30) |
| 12. summary of hearing and decision regarding the detention. (Para 31) |
| 13. evaluation of the necessity for preventive detention. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 14. legal standards for assessing public order. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 15. differentiation between law and order and public order disturbances. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 16. arguments relating to preventive measures based on past actions. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 17. court's view on necessity and grounds for detention. (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 18. affirmation of procedural adherence in detention review. (Para 50 , 51) |
| 19. judgment conclusion. (Para 52) |
| 20. final ruling on the writ petition. (Para 53) |
JUDGMENT :
(Narendra Kumar Johari, J.)
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers :-
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing and commanding the opposite parties to forthwith release the petitioner.
(iii) quash the entire consequential proceedings."
2. The facts of the case are that on 10.08.2022 at around 6.00 P.M. when the informant Smt. Siddeswari Devi and her daughter Rajni were present in her house, the accused persons Maroof, Jubair, Arif, Shamshad, Munna, S/o Sabban Fauji along with other persons of muslim community entered into the house of informant and started molesting her daughter. When the informant opposed, the accused Munna fired on chest of informant. Fortunately, due to missing of cartridge, it could not be fired. The accused Munna inquired about the whereabouts of her son Nanhe as he was leading the tricolor flag yatra on the occasion of their festival (Muharram). The accused persons gave threat that they will kill her son. When the informant raised her voice for help the neighbours reached on the spot to rescue them. At that time the accused persons started firing shots. On intervention of the neighbours, the accused persons returned back by extending threat.
3. The F.I.R. of the occurrence was lodged at Police Station Pali, District Hardoi at 6.53 P.M. on the same day vide Case Crime No. 305/2022, under Section 452 , 354, 307, 506 I.P.C. It has also been mentioned that Section 7 /8 of the POCSO Act had also been added in the case. Subsequently the son of informant Nanhe lodged another F.I.R. on the same day at 7.47 P.M. in the same police station with the allegation that at 7.00 P.M. the accused persons Rijwan, Sainiyaz, Rahmat Ali @ Monu and Riyasat and other approximately 200 unknown persons came to the house of the informant Nanhe with the common intention to kill the informant. They started stone pelting and abusing. The accused Rizwan and some other persons opened fire but the family members of the informant somehow saved their lives. It has also been alleged that one day prior, the informant had received life threat near Imam Chowk Imambara. Accordingly the F.I.R. was registered in the same police station at 7.47 P.M. vide Crime No. 306/2022 under
Abhayraj Gupta Vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly
Union of India v. Yumnam Anand M. Alias Bocha Alias Kora Alias Suraj and another
Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.G. Khambra
Magan Gope v. State of West Bengal
Ibrahim Nazeer v. State of T.N. and another
Dr Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 709
Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of W.B. WP No. 179 of 1968, decided on November 7
Shyamal Chakraborty v. Commissioner of Police
Ram Ranjan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal
Indradeo Mahato v. State of W.B.
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....
Preventive detention requires a clear demonstration of how actions disturb public order, not merely law and order, with timely issuance reflecting genuine concern for community safety.
Preventive detention under the National Security Act requires clear justification of public order disturbances, adherence to procedural safeguards, and can be validated by prior criminal history.
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 requires clear, compelling reasons linked to public order; mere apprehensions are insufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.