TAHIR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed by the District magistrate, Burhanpur, detaining him under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the Act' ).

(2.) ON 10. 10. 2008 there were communal riots in Burhanpur town between the hindu and Muslim and the entire Burhanpur town was under curfew till 20. 10. 2008. A number of criminal cases were registered in different police stations of burhanpur town and several persons were arrested and some of them were released on bail by the Court. The Superintendent of Police, Burhanpur, submitted a report dated 30. 10. 2008 to the District Magistrate, Burhanpur and pursuant to the police report dated 30. 10. 2008, the District Magistrate, Burhanpur, passed the impugned order dated 13. 4. 2009 detaining the petitioner under Section 3 (2) of the Act. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board gave its opinion and pursuant to the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Home department, in exercise of powers under Section 12 (1) of the Act confirmed the order of detention and directed that the period of detention of the petitioner shall continue till expiry of 12 months from the date of his detention i. e. up to 12. 4. 2010.

(3.) MR. M. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the grounds of detention served on the petitioner would show that the allegations against the petitioner are general in nature and that no proper investigation has been done into the allegations made against the petitioner. He further submitted that about 1000 persons who were involved in the communal riots in Burhanpur town during 10. 10. 2008 to 20. 10. 2008 were arrested and criminal cases were registered against them in different police stations of Burhanpur town, but most of the arrested persons have been released on bail. He submitted that witnesses in different criminal cases registered against the petitioner have also turned hostile in trials in different courts. He submitted that the detention of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Burhanpur and the order passed by the State Government, are therefore bad and are liable to be quashed. He cited the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others ( 2009 {2} M. P. H. T. 297 {db}) in support of his contentions.