The preventive detention order must adhere to due process; failure to comply with procedural requirements renders it invalid.

1. This Writ Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the detenu - Ajay Singh @ Deepu, seeking quashment of the order of detention dated 12th December, 2013 (Annexure P - 1) passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind and the subsequent order of Government of Madhya Pradesh, Home Department, Bhopal dated 25th January, 2014 (Annexure P - 2). Both the orders were issued under the National Security Act, 1980 (for brevity it is referred as "the Act of 1980'').

2. The Superintendent of Police, Bhind filed a report before the District Magistrate, Bhind on 27-11-2013, stating that due to the criminal activities of the petitioner, the persons are not willing to come forward to record their evidence in criminal cases against the petitioner. Due to the activities of the petitioner, the peace of the area was in danger. The Superintendent of Police has mentioned the details of seven criminal cases registered against the petitioner, which are as follows: -

3. The District Magistrate, as per the memorandum of the Superintendent of Police, Bhind, recorded the statements of the witnesses, namely, Station House Officers - Sunil Khemriya and Damodar Gupta, Police Station Gormi, District Bhind. The learned District Magistrate, Bhind mentioned the grounds for detaining the petitioner under the provisions of Act of 1980. The grounds are based, on the basis of registration of criminal cases against the petitioner. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board and the Board also recommended the detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1980 and consequently, the State Government vide order dated 25th January, 2014 (Annexure P - 2) affirmed the detention order of the petitioner (Annexure P - 1) passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of detention of the petitioner is illegal because the grounds for detaining the petitioner which have been taken, are baseless and without proper application of mind.
(i) On the basis of false and bogus report, Crime No.94/2010 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under S.307, S.342, S.34, S.302 of IPC and S.3
(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 21-05-2012 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.1452/2012. Copy of the order has been filed as Annexure P - 3. (ii) Crime No.52/2012 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under S.25/27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by the trial Court itself. Copy of the FIR has been filed as Annexure P - 4.
(iii) Crime No.14/2013 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under S.327, S.336, S.294, S.506, S.429, S.34 of IPC. This Court in M.Cr.C. No.1918/2013 vide order dated 18-03-2013 has already quashed the FIR as well as criminal proceedings with regard to Crime No.14/2013. Copy of the order has been filed as Annexure P - 5.
(iv) Crime No.16/2013 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under S.336, S.294, S.506, S.34 of IPC. This Court in M.Cr.C.No.1919/2013 vide order dated 18-03-2013 has already quashed the FIR as well as criminal proceedings with regard to Crime No.16/2013. Copy of the order has been filed as Annexure P - 6. (3 ) WP No. 3322/2014
(v) So far as Crime No.310/2013 (wrongly mentioned as Crime No.307/2013) is concerned, offences were registered against the petitioner under S.327, S.294, S.506, S.323 of IPC. The matter is under trial and the petiti