- (1.)This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 29/04/2021 whereby the petitioner is detained by learned District Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 3(2) & (3) of National Security Act, 1980 (in short NSA Act).
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a law abiding citizen. His mother is a cancer patient. The petitioner was tried for committing certain petty offences which is evident from the chart/list (page 14). Three criminal cases of petty nature were instituted against him. First offence arising out of Crime No.337/2018 under Section 3 of M.P. Sampatti Virupan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1994 in which 1000 rupees' fine was imposed on the petitioner. Remaining two offences arising out of Crime No.149/21 & 151/21 are still under investigation. The said offences are under Section 323, 336, 426, 147, 148, 149 of IPC, Section 3 of Lok Sampatti Nuksan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1984 in Crime No.149/21 and Section 323, 336, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC in Crime No.151/21.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was detained on 29/04/2021 and grounds for detention were also furnished on the same day. No prior opportunity was given to the petitioner nor grounds were furnished before detaining the petitioner. The petitioner could not have been subjected to detention on the basis of old incidents. Reliance is placed on (Ramesh Yadav vs. State of MP,1986 2 MPWN 61). The next contention is that adequate material for invoking Section 3 of NSA Act were not available with the learned District Magistrate. Reliance is placed on (Bajal Gazi vs. State of U.P.,1988 1 MPWN 158). It is further argued that for allegedly committing petty offences, the drastic provision of NSA Act could not have been invoked. The report shows that petitioner has caused injury to communal harmony, but no FIR shows that petitioner has ever committed any such thing which became a threat to the communal harmony. Thus, learned District Magistrate has mechanically invoked the provisions of NSA Act. The detention order is liable to be interfered with.