SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 19

SK.MABUD ALIAS MAMUD ALIAS MADUD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
WPCRL 82/2020



Advocates:
['DEBASIS SARANGI', '', 'B S DASPARIDA', 'S K DASH', 'S MOHAPATRA', 'K MOHANTY', 'M K AGRAWALA']

ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

W.P.(CRL.) NO.82 OF 2020

(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India).

Sk.Mabud @ Mamud @ Madud ……. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & another ……. Opp. Parties

For Petitioner : M/s. Debasis Sarangi,

B. S. Dasparida, S.K.Dash,

S. Mohapatra, K. Mohanty

and M.K. Agrawala

For Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Janmejaya Katikia

Additional Govt. Advocate

--------------

P R E S E N T :

THE HONOURABLE KUMARI JUSTICE SANJU PANDA

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing : 11.11.2020 Date of Judgment : 16.12.2020

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The present Criminal Writ Petition has been filed by the

petitioner invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

of

India

challenging

the

order

of

detention

dated

12.02.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Balasore

under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

AFR

2

2. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder so as to

appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the

parties:

(a) The petitioner was under judicial custody in

the

District

Headquarters

Jail

Balasore

in

connection to P.S. Case No.319 dated 17.10.2019

held under Section 395 of IPC and Sections 25

and 27 of the Arms Act. The Superintendent of

Police, Balasore in his letter No.7586/1B dated

26.12.2019 addressing the District Magistrate

appealed for the detention of the petitioner under

Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. He

contended that the present petitioner has been

indulging in antisocial activities prejudicial to

public order in town, Sahadevkhunta, Sadar,

Industrial PS’s areas and throughout the district

of Balasore and also bordering area of West

Bengal since 2013. He further emphasized that

the petitioner does not have any ostensible means

of livelihood and only depends upon extortion,

robbery and other criminal activities. Further, he

contended

that

the

people

in

the

above-

mentioned regions are in a state of constant fear

due to the continuous atrocious activities of this

petitioner who is a dreaded criminal. The

Superintendent of Police has then attached a list

3

of 20 cases, while detailing those he has

mentioned that out of 14 cognizable cases, 8

cases have been charge sheeted and the rest 6

are under investigation and will be charge-

sheeted soon.

(b)

Acknowledging

the

Letter

No.7586/1B,

District

Magistrate,

Balasore

ordered

for

detention of the petitioner on 12.02.2020 and

consequently provided the grounds of detention

to the petitioner on 16.02.2020. The District

Magistrate has stated that there

is

every

possibility that his release on bail will lead to the

probabilities of his indulgence in more and more

criminal activities. He has further stated that

upon thorough perusal of materials of criminal

cases registered against him, it is clear that the

petitioner is a die-hard anti-social and criminal

who has scanty regard for the law of the land.

Hence, his detention under Section 3(2) of the

NSA Act is necessary in the interest of the

maintenance of public peace as well as upholding

public order in the locality.

(c) The aforesaid order of detention was approved

by the State Government on 20.02.2020 and

subsequently based on the report of the Advisory

Board, the same was confirmed on 06.04.2020

for a period of three months. Thereafter the

4

period of detention has been extended on

06.05.2020 and 30.07.2020 pursuant to which

the petitioner continues to be in detention.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

detaining authority while presenting the report against the

d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top