MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Sushil Harkauli, Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Haji Abdul Rajjak - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P.and others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4551-2012
Decided On : 21-09-2012
National Security Act - Validity of detention challenged - Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 - Summary of Acts and Sections: National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3, Section 5-A - The court discussed the grounds of detention, the impact of the detenue's actions on public order, and the legal provisions under the National Security Act, 1980. The court also considered the concept of preventive detention and the continuing tendency of the detenue to affect public order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the order dated 17-3-2012, detaining him under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The respondents alleged the petitioner's involvement in criminal activities prejudicial to public order, forming a gang, possession of dangerous weapons, and disturbing communal harmony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detenue's actions affected public order, and the order of detention was passed to prevent him from engaging in prejudicial activities. The court also noted the continuing tendency of the detenue to affect public order.
Issues: Validity of the detention order, impact of the detenue's actions on public order, consideration of the grounds of detention, and the concept of preventive detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The impact of the detenue's actions on public order, continuing tendency to affect public order, and the legal provisions under the National Security Act, 1980 were crucial in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the detention order was dismissed by the court.
Judgment
Alok Aradhe, J.:-
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 17-3-2012 passed by the District Magistrate by which petitioner has been detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act').
2. As per the case setforth by the respondents in the return, the Superintendent of Police, vide memorandum, dated 14-3-2012 informed the District Magistrate, Jabalpur about the criminal activities and involvement of the petitioner in several criminal cases since 1991, which are prejudicial to the public order. The District Magistrate by the aforesaid memorandum was informed that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has formed a gang, which is in possession of dangerous weapons and explosives. The petitioner alongwith his gang is repeatedly committing serious crimes and that the petitioner has made criminal activities, means of his livelihood and has earned crores of rupees and has started using the money to eliminate other criminals in the city in order to create monopoly of his gang in the criminal activities in city. It was also stated in the memorandum that on account of criminal activities of the petitioner, there is an atmosphere of fear in the locality. The petitioner, with the help of his son and gang formed by him, tried to disturb the communal harmony of the city and that the petitioner is having history of committing serious crimes, including murder, gang war and to provoke riots between the two communities. Due to the activities of petitioner, there is an atmosphere of terror in the city and no victim comes forward, even to lodge a report, against the petitioner in the Police Station. The memorandum further states that on earlier occasions also, preventive actions were taken against the petitioner under different Laws but no improvement was observed so far as the involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities is concerned.
3. It has further been stated in the return that in the criminal cases, where the petitioner was acquitted, it can easily be seen that witnesses turned hostile in the Court of Law as no witness dared to depose anything against the petitioner and the petitioner got acquitted even in the case in which offences were committed by him in broad day light and at public place and in full public view. In the return, it has further been averred that the petitioner has formed a gang and the police has prepared the record of the criminal activities in which the gang formed by the petitioner is involved. The aforesaid confidential report of the Police Department was also placed before the District Magistrate. It has further been averred that though the son of the petitioner, against whom warrant of arrest was issued on 16-8-2007 in compliance of the order passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security. Act, could not be executed as he was under the unlawful protection of the petitioner. As soon as the 'petitioner was arrested, his son was also arrested by the Police within a period of three days.
4. In the additional return, which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the Police Authorities have collected the details of offences committed by the gang formed by petitioner, which show that more than 103 crimes have been committed by said gang, not only in Jabalpur District, but even in the surrounding districts as well. It has further been averred that the preventive proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2010, as there was possibility that the petitioner may commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility, because on 24-9-2010, the judgment in respect of Babri Masjid case was to be delivered by Allahabad High Court. Similarly, in 2012 a complaint was received that the petitioner and one Rais Wali were trying to provoke the feelings of particular community in Khuda Baksha Masjid situated in Omti and, therefore, proce
Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya Vs. Union of India and others
Ramveer Jatav Vs. State of U.P. and others
Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal Vs. Police Commissioner and another
Tahsildar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others
Geeta Sahu Vs. District Magistrate, Shahdol and another
Narayan Debnath Vs. State of West Bengal
State of U.P. and another Vs. Sanjai Pratap Gupta
Mukesh Tikaji Bora Vs. Union of India and others
Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of W.B.
Kishori Mohan Boara Vs. State of W.B.
AI
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.