Abdul Kareem vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Smt. Anuradha Shukla, JJ.
Abdul Kareem v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 38967 of 2024 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 24.1.2025

Advocates appeared:
Gyan Prakash Tripathi for petitioner;
Ritwik Parashar, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:
(1) Law and Order -- act affecting public order may have ramifications over law & order and security of State at the same time -- expressive function of punishment or preventive measure like detention under NSA are both retributive and utilitarian -- retributive punishment/preventive measures, even if not proportional to physical/psychic harm done to victim, give a chance to perpetrator to purge his misdeeds and act as deterrent to other probable perpetrators -- utilitarian function of punishment/preventive measure has power to change social norms and behaviour via messages it expresses and may help in reduction of crime. (2008) 16 SCC 14, AIR 1967 SC 1441, (1975) 2 SCC 81, (1982) 2 SCC 403, (2004) 7 SCC 467, (1972) 3 SCC 845, (1969) 1 SCC 10, 1970 JLJ SN 10 = (1970) 1 SCC 98 and (1972) 1 SCC 498 followed. [Paras 15 & 16
(2) Doctrine -- Broken Windows Theory -- targeting minor disorder is expected to reduce occurrence of more serious crime -- if a window in building is broken and left unrepaired, all the windows will soon be broken -- preventive measure taken by police against miscreant is for purpose of sending message to person concerned as well as other probable perpetrators. [Para 18
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3(2) -- writ of habeas corpus -- writ petition against order of preventive detention -- many criminal cases registered against detenu which are still pending -- allegations not of minor offences -- long trail of criminal cases acquired by detenu because of his misdeeds, misdemeanours and criminal bent of mind -- different nature of cases registered and tried against detenu cannot be taken lightly -- detenu habitual offender -- in habit of giving threats to locals -- they are afraid to come forward to ventilate their grievances -- all these attributes render detenu a threat to public peace and order and he appears to be against interest of society/community at large -- subjective satisfaction of detaining authorities cannot be interfered with -- detaining authority applied its mind to all material/documents placed before it -- there is substantive compliance of section 3(5) -- no procedural lapse or violation in detention order -- order of detention and consequential order of extension affirmed. (2008) 16 SCC 14, AIR 1967 SC 1441, (1975) 2 SCC 81, (1982) 2 SCC 403, (2004) 7 SCC 467, (1972) 3 SCC 845, (1969) 1 SCC 10, (1970) 1 SCC 98, (1972) 1 SCC 498, (1987) 2 SCC 684, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and AIR 1974 SC 816 followed. [Paras 21 to 24
(4) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3(2) -- extension of period of detention -- not mandatory to take prior approval from Advisory Board before each extension order regarding detention period is made. [Para 24
¼1½ fof/k&OoLFkk && yksd O;oLFkk çHkkfor djus okys dk;Z ls ,d gh le; esa fof/k&OoLFkk rFkk jkT; dh lqj{kk ij foLrh.kZ çHkko iM+ ldrk gS && naM vFkok jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fujks/k tSls fuokjd mik; dk vfHkO;ä dk;Z naMkRed vkSj mi;ksxh] nksuksa gS && naMkRed naM@fuokjd mik;] ihfM+r dks igq¡pkbZ xbZ 'kkjhfjd@ekufld gkfu ls vkuqikfrd ugha gks rc Hkh] vijk/kh dks vius iki /kksus dk volj nsrs gSa rFkk vU; vf/klaHkkO; vijkf/k;ksa dks grksRlkfgr djrs gSa && naM@fuokjd mik; ds mi;ksxh dk;Z esa mlds }kjk vfHkO;ä fd, x, lans'k ds ek/;e ls lkekftd ekudksa vkSj O;ogkj dks ifjofrZr djus dh 'kfä gksrh gS rFkk og vijk/k esa deh ykus esa lgk;d gks ldrk gSA ¼2008½16 ,llhlh 14] ,vkbvkj 1967 ,llh 1441] ¼1975½ 2 ,llhlh 81] ¼1982½ 2 ,llhlh 403] ¼2004½7 ,llhlh 467] ¼1972½ 3 ,llhlh 845] ¼1969½ 1 ,llhlh 10] 1970 ts,yts ,l,u 10 ¾¼1970½ 1 ,llhlh 98 rFkk ¼1972½ 1 ,llhlh 498 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15 ,oa 16
¼2½ fl)kar && VwVh f[kM+dh fl)kar && xkS.k miæo dks fu'kkuk cuk dj vfèkd xaHkhj vijk/k de ?kVus dh çR;k'kk dh tkrh gS && ;fn fdlh Hkou esa f[kM+dh VwVh gS vkSj mls fcuk ejEer fd, NksM+ fn;k tkrk gS rks 'kh?kz gh lHkh f[kM+fd;‚a VwV tk,¡xh && iqfyl }kjk cnek'k ds fo:) fd;k x;k fuokjd mik; lac) O;fä ds lkFk gh vU; vf/klaHkkO; vijkf/k;ksa dks Hkh lans'k nsus ds ç;kstukFkZ gksrk gSA ¼iSjk 18
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3¼2½ && canh çR;{khdj.k fjV && fuokjd fujks/kkns'k ds fo:) fjV ;kfpdk && fu:) O;fä ds fo:) vusd nkafMd çdj.k iath—r tks vHkh Hkh yafcr gSa && vfHkdFku xkS.k vijk/kksa ds ugha && vius nq"—R;ksa] nqjkpj.k vkSj vkijkf/kd ço`fÙk ds dkj.k fu:) O;fä }kjk nkafMd çdj.kksa dh yach J`a[kyk vftZr && fu:) O;fä ds fo:) iath—r vkSj fookj.kk/khu çdj.kksa dh fHkUu&fHkUu ç—fr ds çfr ykijokg ugha jgk tk ldrk && fu:) O;fä vkH;kfld vijk/kh && LFkkuh; yksxksa dks /kedkus dk vH;Lr && og vkxs vkdj viuh f'kdk;rsa crkus esa Mjrs gSa && ;g lHkh xq.k fu:) O;fä dks yksd 'kkafr vkSj O;oLFkk ds fy, [krjk cukrs gSa rFkk og lexz lekt@leqnk; ds fgr ds çfrdwy çrhr gksrk gS && fujks/k çkf/kdkfj;ksa ds O;fäijd lek/kku esa gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk && fujks/k çkf/kdkjh us vius le{k j[kh xbZ laiw.kZ lkexzh@nLrkostksa ij euksfu;ksx fd;k && /kkjk 3¼5½ dk lkjoku~ vuqikyu fd;k x;k && fujks/kkns'k esa dksbZ çfØ;kRed pwd ;k vfrØe.k ugha && fujks/kkns'k rFkk vof/k cढ+kus dk ikfj.kkfed vkns'k vfHkiq"VA ¼2008½16 ,llhlh 14] ,vkbvkj 1967 ,llh 1441] ¼1975½ 2 ,llhlh 81] ¼1982½ 2 ,llhlh 403] ¼2004½ 7 ,llhlh 467] ¼1972½ 3 ,llhlh 845] ¼1969½ 1 ,llhlh 10] ¼1970½ 1 ,llhlh 98] ¼1972½ 1 ,llhlh 498] ¼1987½ 2 ,llhlh 684] ¼2002½ 3 ,llhlh 598 rFkk ,vkbvkj 1974 ,llh 816 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21 ls 24
¼4½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3¼2½ && fujks/k dh vof/k cढ+kbZ tkuk && fujks/k dh vof/k cढ+kus ds laca/k esa çR;sd vkns'k ds iwoZ lykgdkj cksMZ ls iwoZ vuqeksnu ysuk vkKkid ughaA ¼iSjk 24

ORDER

Dharmadhikari, J. -- 1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

2. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the nature of Habeas Corpus assailing the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate Seoni on 1.7.2024, annexure P/2 by exercising powers under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for brevity 'the NSA') as well as the consequential order of extension of the detention period dated 13.9.2024 by extending the detention of the petitioner for a period of further three months.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Police Station Dhuma, District Seoni registered Crime No.214/2024 against the petitioner for the offence under section 153-A and 120-B of IPC and section 4, 9 of M.P.Gou Vansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 and section 11(1)(l) of Pashu Krurta Nivaran Adhiniyam. During this period, the Collector/respondent No.2 has registered NSA proceeding against the petitioner and passed detention order on 1.7.2024 vide Order No.1644/Reader/NSA/2024 for a period of three months. However, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court. But, the petitioner could not be released because of the impugned detention order. Thereafter, the Collector, Seoni, respondent No.2 issued order of extension of detention period for a period of further three months vide order dated 13.9.2024 because his presence is treated as an imminent threat and danger to public order and society at large.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents while issuing the order in arbitrary and malafide exercise of power under section 3(2) of the Act, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the detenue before passing the impugned order. The detention order passed on 1.7.2024 was for a period of three months only. After expiry of the same, another order of extension dated 13.9.2024 has been passed. The said order is to continue upto 2.1.2025. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents is in gross violation of section 3(5) of NSA. The action of the respondents is contrary to the mandate of NSA and it violates Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to life with dignity of the detenu has been infringed by issuance of mechanical orders of detention.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the petition and submits that presence of the petitioner is an imminent threat and danger to public order and society at large. It is further submitted that the detenu is a history sheeter indulged in various crimes including heinous crimes. The detenu is a person of criminal proclivity as despite being charge-sheeted for offences under various sections of IPC, there is no change in his behaviour. The detenu is in the habit of disturbing public peace and tranquility specially during festivals of a particular religious community, destroying the public property, threatening for public at large with deadly weapons and killing gou vansh, which clearly reveals that the detenu became a threat to the public order because of his audacity and desperate criminal disposition. Therefore, the impugned orders do not deserve any interference, therefore, the order impugned has rightly been passed. It is further submitted that the petition sans merit and deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. From perusal of return filed by the State. it is evident that detenu is involved in different criminal cases / charge-sheeted alleging commission of different offences, particulars of which are placed along with the return and on the basis of those cases as well as apprehension of the authorities that detenu may commit breach of public order, proceedings were initiated under the Act against the detenu which culminated into passing of impugned order dated 1.7.2024 and consequential extension order by the District Magistrate, District – Seoni.

8. From the pleadings, it appears that the Superintendent of Police, Se