Preventive detention for acts affecting public order is permissible even against a person in custody, provided the authority is aware of the custody and has credible material to believe that, upon expected release on bail, the detainee will likely repeat activities prejudicial to public order.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been preferred by Sameer through his father, Shamshad, against his detention ordered by the District Magistrate, Shamli, under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, vide order dated 15.05.2025, and confirmed by the State Government vide order dated 12.06.2025 made under Section 12(1) of the Act last mentioned.

2. The facts, giving rise to this petition, would show that it all began with a police party, headed by Sub-Inspector Gyanendra Singh on routine duty to maintain law and order and serve processes etc. while passing through the jungle in Village Lavvadaudpur, Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli, coming across the remains of cows’ progeny, lying in the field of one Sandeep son of Aval Singh on 15.03.2025, soon after 10.10 a.m. The police party, who came across the remains of cows' progeny, found 11 dismembered feet, four tails, parts of the head, besides parts of skin and a wooden block. The police team called Veterinary Medical Officer, Dr. Imran Ansari over his mobile phone to identify the remains. The Veterinary Medical Officer reached the spot and identified the remains as ones of the cows progeny, regarding which he said he would make a separate report. The police team in the FIR, that they got registered with P.S. Jhinjhana, said that the remains were found at the specified location, and that some unknown men had slaughtered the cows progeny, on the basis of which Crime No. 99 of 2025, under Section 3/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955'), P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli, was registered. It was also recorded in the FIR that the remains were secured by the Police and upon directions of the Veterinary Medical Officer, in order to prevent foul stench, besides disease from spreading, interred after digging up earth. The wooden block was marked and taken into custody.

3. It is next said in the FIR that Holi was around and the incident had led to unrest amongst the Hindu population, necessitating detailing of force to maintain peace. It was also said in the FIR that a memo of recovery was prepared on the spot and signed by members of the police party. In fact, it is the aforesaid memo, relating to recovery of remains of the cows progeny, that was registered as the check FIR, giving rise to the crime.

4. The grounds, upon which the impugned detention is founded, are indeed detailed and recount all happenings and circumstances, leading to the petitioner's incarceration. Since other men were involved in the crime, that led to the petitioner's detention, and they too were similarly detained, the grounds carry reference to those others as well. Therefore, it may not be relevant for us to refer to the entire gamut of facts that the grounds carry. We propose to refer to only so much of whatever is said in the grounds as is relevant to the petitioner's detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the NSA'). After a copious reference to the discovery of the offence by the police team and whatever is said in the FIR, it is mentioned in the grounds that post registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer left for the pla