MANIKANT ASATI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 18/05/2021 (Annexure P/1) whereby District Magistrate, Jabalpur by invoking Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter called "the Blackmarketing Act") has detained the petitioner's brother Vivek Asati (hereinafter called "detenu") for his alleged involvement in blackmarketing of remedesivir injections during pandemic era.

(2.) In brief, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that detenu is a young boy of 24 years, who has recently completed his Graduation. He does not have any criminal record. The detention order came as a bolt from blue to the detenu, who was already arrested on 15/04/2021. Thus, on the date of passing of detention order, the detenu was already in custody. He preferred an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail which was rejected by trial Court on 22/04/2021. Another application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was filed on 24/05/2021 before the High Court bearing MCRC No.25646/2021. Thus, on the date of passing of detention order, no bail application was pending consideration.

(3.) Shri Bhoopesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is trite that for singular incident/conduct also the provisions of the Blackmarketing Act/NSA Act can be invoked and a person who is already arrested can still be detained under the Blackmarketing Act/any other detention law if three conditions are satisfied namely, i) the detaining authority has knowledge about his previous arrest, ii) the detaining authority considers that there is a possibility of detenue's getting bail and, iii) the possibility of his future involvement in same/similar kind of activity. The reliance is placed on the recent judgment passed by this Court in WP No.9792/2021 (Yatindra vs. State of MP & Ors.) which was based on a previous judgment of this Court in Kamini Yadav vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.P. No.25986/2018) and judgment of Supreme Court in ( Konungjao Singh vs. State of Manipur & Ors. , 2012 7 SCC 181). Shri Tiwari submits that if principles laid down in aforesaid judgments are applied in the instant case, it will be clear that the detaining authority was very well aware about the previous arrest of the detenu. However, remaining two conditions are not satisfied. To elaborate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the letter/recommendation of SP nowhere shows that on the date of such recommendation, any bail application of detenu was pending. Thus, there was no material to reach to the conclusion that there exists a possibility of getting bail by the detenu. Similarly, there exists no material to show that the detenu can get involved in similar kind of activities. By placing heavy reliance on ( Anand Prakash vs. State of UP & Ors. , 1990 1 SCC 291), ( Pooja Batra vs. Union of India & Ors. , 2009 5 SCC 296), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subjective satisfaction of District Magistrate is not a satisfaction which can be beyond the scope of judicial review. Unless there exists a material on the basis of past record or otherwise showing that detenu can get involved in similar activity, the detention order is bad-in-law. In absence of any specific material in the instant case to show that detenu can continue to indulge in similar activity, the detention order is bad-in-law. By taking this Court to the detention order, it is submitted that order is totally founded upon the statement of the Station House Officer, Police Station-Madhotal and the learned District Magistrate has not recorded his own satisfaction on such statement. Resultantly, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. For the same purpose, ( Sanjay Yadav & Anr. vs. State of Anr. , 2011 2 MPLJ 277) is also relied upon.