Preventive detention requires clear, compelling reasons linked to public order; mere apprehensions are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Shri Nigmendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prem Narain Rai, learned counsel for the Union of India and Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

2. Present Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking following reliefs:-

"a). issue writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty after setting aside the order dated 4.3.2024 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent no.5, namely, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad in exercise of his power under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980.

b) issue such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the case.

c). to award the cost to the petitioner."

3. The aforesaid reliefs have been prayed for on the basis of following main grounds :

(i) that the impugned detention order is a non-speaking order and as such not sustainable under law.

(ii) that no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad while passing the impugned detention order.

(iii) that there may be problem of law and order and not public order.

4. The impugned detention order dated 4.3.2024 was passed by the respondent no.5 - District Magistrate, Ghaziabad under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short ‘the NSA, 1980’).

5. The extracts of case diary including the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer have been appended with the affidavit by the petitioner.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under the NSA, 1980 were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of F.I.R. dated 23.10.2023 registered at case crime no. 611 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 404 IPC, P.S. Tilamod, District Ghaziabad. The incident alleged in the said F.I.R. was that the brother of the informant was shot on 22.10.2023 at about 8.30 p.m. near his house by nine named and one unknown persons including the present petitioner. In pursuance of that F.I.R. the petitioner was arrested on 24.10.2023 and he is still in jail. Subsequently, charge sheet no. 01/2024 was submitted in the matter on 19.1.2024 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 404, 120-B, 34, 224, 394, 411, 307 IPC, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/25 and 27 of the Arms Act. There were material contradictions in the statement of the wife of the deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC from that of mentioned in the F.I.R. of this case but the learned trial court discarded the same. It is also submitted that a report was prepared by the S.H.O., P.S. Tilamod, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad on 2.3.2024, which was forwarded to the respondent no.8 through respondent no.7, recommending action against the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the NSA, 1980. The respondent no.8 enquired into the matter and concurring with the report of respondent no.9 – S.H.O. P.S. Tilamod, recommended detention / action against the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the NSA, 1980. The respondent no.8 in his report picturized the petitioner as an anti-social criminal minded person, who by his criminal acts causes panic, fear and terror in the minds of villagers resultantly affecting the public life adversely hence, to preserve peace in the village and society and for establishment of rule of law the detention of the petitioner under the NSA, 1980 was required, as per the report of respondent no.2, sent to respondent no.5 and subsequently the impugned detention order was passed accordingly. All the concerned authorities recorded almost same findings pertaining to the present petitioner but significantly the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad passed the impugned order dated 4.3.2024 which was a non-speaking order without recording any subjective satisfaction or giving any separate finding on his part which shows the lack of independent application