SHEEBA MALIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the detention of her husband Mukhtar Malik in consequence of the order dated 15.9.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhopal, the respondent No.3, which was approved by the State Government and also by the Advisory Board.

(2.) The facts, as narrated in the petition as well as in the return submitted by the respondents, are that petitioner's husband Mukhtar Malik has been detained by virtue of the order dated 15.9.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhopal in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This order was confirmed by the respondent No.2/State Government as per the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act. The detention order of Mukhtar Malik has been passed on the grounds enumerated in Annexure P/2, which are as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the detention order mainly on three grounds (1) that the offences registered against the detenu from 7.6.1982 to 27.9.2009 were already the subject matter of the detenu's erlier detention order dated 9th December, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate which after consideration, High Court quashed by order dated 21.3.2010 passed in Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) No.781/2010. Therefore, the grounds taken for detention of detenu for the aforesaid period could not have been repeated in the instant detention order; (2) that the grounds pertaining to offences registered against detenu on 15.8.2012, 2.9.2012 and 4.9.2012 were vague and pertained to merely law and order problem and did not tend to affect the public order of the society; and (3) that at the time when the detention order was passed i.e. on 15.9.2012, the detenu had already been arrested and he was in custody in connection with Crime No.795/2012 registered against him under Section 25/27/35 of the Indian Arms Act on 14.9.2012. The detaining authority was not made aware of this fact. As such, the detention order was passed without application of mind.