Back
MP High Court Quashes NSA Detention Order Processed in Just One Day, Finds 11 Acquittals
The has set aside a order under the , after uncovering that police processed the entire detention recommendation—from initial report to district magistrate's approval—in a single day while wrongly marking 11 criminal cases as pending despite the detainee's acquittal.
A division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh allowed writ petitions filed by Rajendra Thakur @ Chhotu and Rajesh Thakur @ Bhaiya, quashing the detention order dated , passed by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, along with its subsequent extensions.
One-Day Processing Raises Red Flags
The detention stemmed from a , incident where the petitioner allegedly threw a country-made bomb at a complainant's house. Within 48 hours, the City Superintendent of Police, Gohalpur, forwarded a report listing 22 criminal cases against the petitioner. The Additional Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police forwarded the same report to the District Magistrate on the same day——who immediately passed the detention order.
"The sequence and timing of the three different police personnel acting together on the same day and the language of the three communications… reveals
,"
the court observed.
11 Acquittals Incorrectly Marked as Pending
The court scrutinized the list of cases and found that while the District Magistrate's order showed 14 cases as , the petitioner had actually been acquitted in 11 of them. The judgment detailed specific acquittals from 2006 through 2025, including cases where complainants failed to support the prosecution or where compromise had been reached.
"When all these facts are taken into consideration, then it is evident that despite the fact that out of fourteen cases in which trial is shown to be pending in eleven cases, the petitioner has been acquitted, leads to a conclusion that while placing the record of the petitioner, correct facts were not placed before the competent authority and that clearly suffers from the vice of
,"
the bench noted.
Mechanical Reliance Without Verification
The court found that the City Superintendent of Police supplied incorrect data, which was mechanically forwarded by senior officers. The District Magistrate then relied on this data without any independent verification.
"In our opinion, this
of
, arising out of the incorrect supply of data by the concerned City Superintendent of Police, Gohalpur, District Jabalpur, and its mechanical forwarding by the Additional Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, coupled with the District Magistrate's blatant reliance upon such data without seeking its verification,
the
of detention. Verification could have been obtained with the slightest of efforts by accessing the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (for short, 'CCTNS')."
Additionally, the court noted that the Superintendent of Police had issued a to a sub-inspector on , regarding manipulation of CCTV footage from the January 4 incident—further undermining the basis for detention.
Precedent on
The bench relied heavily on the 's decision in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 587, which held that courts must examine whether the applied its mind to relevant circumstances and whether the grounds are precise and pertinent.
The High Court quoted the apex court's observation:
"It requires no serious debate that
, conceived as an extraordinary measure by the Framers of our Constitution, has been rendered ordinary with its reckless invocation over the years as if it were available for use even in the ordinary course of proceedings."
Court: Safeguards Must Be Diligently Enforced
The bench emphasized that cannot be ordered at the "drop of a hat" and that the "" of of the Constitution must be diligently enforced.
"The application of mind to invoke the aforesaid extraordinary measure appears to be missing in the present case. There is no
recorded by the
. When the factual matrix is not correct then application of law cannot be expected to be correct,"
the court concluded.
Order Set Aside
The High Court set aside the detention order dated , and allowed both writ petitions, directing the release of the petitioners unless they were required in any other lawful custody. The judgment serves as a stern reminder to authorities that powers cannot be exercised mechanically without proper application of mind and accurate data.
Case Title: and
Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
