Detention can be legally imposed on individuals already in jail if justified by circumstances and substantial evidence of future prejudicial activity.

1. By moving this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the order dated 5th April, 2012 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department to the State of M.P. Bhopal under S.12 (1) of the National Security Act 1980 whereunder the order passed by the District Magistrate, Guna has been made absolute with extension of period of detention as mentioned in the order itself.

2. The facts leading to the case may be summed up as under: The Superintendent of Police Guna by his letter dated 8th February 2012 addressing to the District Magistrate, Guna informed that petitioner Kashmir Jat, son of Lalaram Jat, aged 42 years, resident of village Richora, P.S. Cant Guna had a chequered history since last 1991 and he was involved in several criminal activities. He was absconded for a considerable period and thereafter was arrested and is confined to jail. The activities of the petitioner adversely affect the community of the society at large. Despite several preventive measurements under law, the activities of the petitioner could not be controlled. Therefore, it was proposed to pass the preventive detention order under S.3(2) of the Act against the petitioner. As per list annexed with the report by the S.P., the criminal history about nineteen cases has been shown against the accused - petitioner. In this view of the matter, the prayer made by the police was allowed and the detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Guna.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the provisions contained in the Act, do not mean to avail the same in a casual manner. It is submitted that the provisions of S.3 of the Act can be invoked only on satisfying the grounds mentioned therein. Mere involvement in several criminal cases of a person can in no manner suggest to exercise such powers unless the same fulfills the requirements satisfying the grounds mentioned in S.3 of the Act. It is submitted that the detention order dated 16th February, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate under S.3(2) of the Act as well as the order dated 5th April, 2012 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Home) State of M.P. under S.12(1) of the Act, marked as Annexure - P / 1 on behalf of the State Government, did not show to have considered in their true perspective the provisions as contemplated in S.3(2) of the Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is not involved either directly or indirectly in any of the criminal activities against the nation or public at large. Therefore, it is prayed that an appropriate writ / order / directions may be issued to quash the order Annexure - P / 1 dated 5th April, 2012 passed by the State which is against the provisions of the Act and the authorities may be directed to release the petitioner from the detention. In support of her submissions aforesaid, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Smt. Victoria Farnandes v. Lalman Sawma and Others , AIR 1992 SC 687 : 1992 CriLJ 702, Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate Burdwan and Others , AIR 1964 SC 334 : 1964 (1) CriLJ 257.

4. Per contra, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents / State by submitting reply contended that the detention order passed by the District Magistrate Guna is in accordance with law, which was passed on the basis of the material made available to the detaining authority by the Superintendent of Police - Guna. It is further submitted that the petitioner was involved in several criminal activities including the offence of heinous crime like murd