GAJJU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur in respect of the detention of the petitioner for a period of three months under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the order of the State Government dated 30th December, 2020 confirming the order of detention and further aggrieved with the order of the District Magistrate dated 08.01.2021 proposing to extend the detention for a further period of three months.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the intimation was sent by the Police Station Hanumantal, Jabalpur to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur in respect of the criminal activities of the petitioner and the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur vide report dated 09.11.2020 had informed the District Magistrate in respect of the petitioner's criminal activities. The District Magistrate thereafter had passed the detention order dated 13.11.2020 and the said detention order has been approved by the State Government on 16.11.2020. The wife of the petitioner had filed the representation and the same was forwarded to the State Government along with the comments and the reports of the Superintendent of Police. The Advisory Board had opined against the petitioner and the State Government acting upon the report of the Advisory Board and finding sufficient cause had confirmed the order of detention. Subsequently, vide communication dated 08.01.2021 the District Magistrate had sent the proposal to the State Government for extending the detention period for a further period of three months.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that out of 13 cases mentioned in the grounds of detention, in 04 cases the petitioner has been acquitted, in one case he has been discharged and in two cases fine has been imposed. He further submits that between 2016 to 2021 no criminal case was registered and that no proper subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the District Magistrate inasmuch as the acquittal of the petitioner in the cases has not been considered. He has further submitted that the matter relates to the law and order problem and not the public order, therefore, detention cannot be sustained and that the petitioner was already in custody when the order of detention was passed and no bail application has been filed by the petitioner, therefore, the detention cannot be sustained. He has also questioned the order extending the period of detention.