NAIMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by detenu Naimuddin S/o Ziauddin seeks quashment of an order of detention (Ex.P/4) dated 20-3-2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Indore u/S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short "the Act").

(2.) It is said that at about 7.20 PM on 18-8-2003 some boys were quarrelling near the house of.one Taj Modh. in Marathi Mohalla, Indore, which was witnessed by others who did not intervene. It is also said that Ziyauddln and Riazuddln were standing on backside of their house on the ground. It is also said that both of them shouted and asked detenu Naimuddin to fire on the persons who were witnessing the quarrel. Accordingly, the petitioner is said to have brought his licensed gun from his house and fired at the crowd. The gun shot caused injuries to Prakash Kadam and two others. Resultantly, there was a disturbance of the public order. Subsequently, Prakash Kadam succumbed to the gun shot injuries. On 18-3-2003 at 7.30 PM Police Station Sadar Bazar, Indore, initially registered a criminal case u/Ss. 307 and 294 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against detenu Naimuddin, Riyazuddin and Ziyauddin and later on Section 302, I.P.C. was also added. It is said that the detenu surrendered on 19-3-2003 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and on 20-3-2003 the impugned detention order u/S. 3(2) of the Act was passed. It is also said that though the petitioner detenu was on police remand till 22-3-2003, the District Magistrate did not refer to this fact in his order. He also did not mention the reasons for his apprehension about possible release of the petitioner on bail in the criminal case. It is also said that the Supdt. of Police in his submissions dated 20-3-2003 to the District Magistrate, Indore, to initiate proceedings for detention mentioned nothing about the surrender of the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 19-3-2003 and, therefore, a vital information which would have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not brought to his notice. It is said that the detention order was served on the detenu on 21-3-2003 along with enclosures but he did not make representation to the appropriate Government. The detenu was produced before the Advisory Board at Jabalpur in April, 2003 and on 29-4-2003 the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh confirmed the detention.

(3.) It is thus submitted that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was vitiated on the ground that he has not referred to a vital fact that the detenu was in police custody on the date of his subjective satisfaction and there was a possibility of his release on bail which would have prejudicially affected the maintenance of public order. It is also submitted that since the detenu/petitioner was in custody in connection with a serious offence and there was no obvious reason or material to show that he would have been released on bail, the impugned order was passed without application of mind. This is also a case of the petitioner that once the detenu was on police remand in police custody, it was necessary to record cogent reasons before passing detention order u/S. 3(2) of the Act.