ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal

These writ petitions are filed being aggrieved of order dated 6.1.2026 passed by the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Jabalpur ordering detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 for a period of three months.

2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that periodically, the District Magistrate, Jabalpur is enhancing the period of detention of the petitioner and has enhanced it from time to time on 1.4.2026 and 6.7.2026 for a further period of three months each under the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioner is a peace loving citizen of the Country. His fundamental rights are being violated by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur for the reasons other than what have been mentioned in the order of the preventive detention. The proceedings of preventive detention are malafide. There is violation of principle of natural justice and no opportunity of hearing was ever provided to the petitioner.

3 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Magistrate, Jabalpur has made a mention of the twenty- two cases out of which two cases were in the nature of prohibitionary proceedings under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which were initiated in the year 2024 and 2025. The other cases are stale starting from 2001 to 2015. After 2015, two cases were registered; one in 2024 pertaining to Crime No.371/2024 for the offence under Sections 294, 452, 342, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and another pertaining to Crime No.19/2026 for the offence under Section 296B, 118(1), 351(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act so also under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

4 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of twenty cases, the District Magistrate has shown that thirteen cases are presently pending trial and one case has been disposed of on the basis of the compromise whereas in three other cases, the petitioner has been punished with fine. In one of the cases, the petitioner was acquitted at the stage of investigation and in two other cases, the petitioner was honourably acquitted by the competent Magistrate. According to learned counsel, this very information is incorrect.

5 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed copy of judgments to show that he has been acquitted in sixteen cases by the competent Courts/Investigating Agency, while minor penalties, i.e. nominal fines, were imposed in three cases. In one case i.e. the FIR pertaining to Crime No.19/2026, investigation is pending. The aforesaid fact mentioned in the rejoinder has not been rebutted. Thus, it is submitted that on wrong premise, learned District Magistrate, Jabalpur has passed an order of preventive detention, which has no foundation, therefore, that order needs to be set aside.

6 Learned Government Advocate for the State supports the impugned order and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner submitting therein that even without there being a single case registered, if the District Magistrate is of the opinion that free movement of the petitioner is a risk to the maintenance of public order then also the petitioner could have been subjected to the proceedings under the National Security Act, 1980. He points out that in the return, a clear stance is taken about the activity of the petitioner and that too how within the jurisdiction of Police Station-Ghamapur, District Jabalpur, the petitioner was found involved in a bomb explosion, which resulted in registration of the FIR against him. The Station House Officer concerned had given a report, which has been duly examined and forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur and thereafter the District Magistrate, Jabalpur made a recommendation for taking preventive detention action under Section 3(2) of th