Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 726 (MP)

Foziya v. State of M. P.

2019-10-15

ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.P.GUPTA

body2019
ORDER 1. With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally. 2. This habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing the detention order No. 11/NSA/2019 dated 15.8.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhopal, whereby exercising power under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, husband of the petitioner, Haider Ali, has been ordered to be detained at Central Jail, Rewa. 3. The aforesaid order has been approved by the State Govt. on 26.8.2019 as mentioned in the order dated 5.9.2019, annexure R-3 and later on modified vide order dated 11.10.2019, annexure R-4. 4. The impugned order, annexure P-2, passed by the District Magistrate, Bhopal, is quoted hereinbelow : U;k;ky; ftykn.Mkf/kdkjh] ftyk&Hkksiky Øekad 11@,u,l,@2019 Hkksiky] fnukad 15-8-2019 vkns'k pwafd esjk ¼r:.k dqekj fiFkksM+s] ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] ftyk&Hkksiky dk½ ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd gSnj vyh iq= Jh glu vyh vk;q&29 o"kZ] fuoklh e-ua- 2 xyh ua- 2 fot; y{eh Ldwy ds ikl ftaalh] Fkkuk tgkaxhjkckn] ftyk&Hkksiky dks yksd O;oLFkk ds vuqj{k.k ds izfrdwy fdlh Hkh jhfr esa dk;Z djus ls jksdus ds vfHkizk; ls mldks jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e 1980 dh /kkjk 3 ¼2½ esa fu:) fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA vr,o mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ lgifBr mi/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx esa ykrs gq, eSa r:.k dqekj fiFkksM+s] ftyk n.Mkfèkdkjh] ftyk&Hkksiky ,rn}kjk vkns'k nsrk g¡w fd gSnj vyh iq= Jh glu vyh vk;q&29 o"kZ] fuoklh e-ua- 2 xyh ua- 2 fot; y{eh Ldwy ds ikl ftalh] Fkkuk tgkaxhjkckn] ftyk&Hkksiky dks fu:) fd;k tk;s rFkk dsUnzh; tsy] jhok esa j[kk tk,A ¼r:.k dqekj fiFkksM+s½ ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] ftyk&Hkksiky 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in view of this Court, the impugned order is contrary to law and unsustainable as, in the said order, no specific period of detention has been mentioned which is mandatory. The District Magistrate has no power to detain a person for indefinite period as the recording of specific period of detention is must and the maximum period shall be only three months. The District Magistrate has no power to detain a person for indefinite period as the recording of specific period of detention is must and the maximum period shall be only three months. Apart from it, communication to the detenue with regard to the grounds of detention and his right to submit representation, (second page of annexure R-1), discloses that the detenue has not been informed that he has a right to submit representation to the authority, who has passed the detention order, as required under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Apart from it, communication to the detenue with regard to the grounds of detention and his right to submit representation, (second page of annexure R-1), discloses that the detenue has not been informed that he has a right to submit representation to the authority, who has passed the detention order, as required under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The said order (second page of annexure R-1) is quoted hereinbelow : dk;kZy; ftykn.Mkf/kdkjh] ftyk& Hkksiky Øekad 11@,u,l,@2019 Hkksiky] fnukad 15-8-2019 izfr] fujks/k ds vk/kkj gSnj vyh iq= Jh glu vyh] vk;q&29 o"kZ] fuoklh e- ua- 2 xyh ua- 2 fot; y{eh Ldwy ds ikl ftalh] Fkkuk tgkaxhjkckn] ftyk&Hkksiky p¡wafd eSa r:.k dqekj fiFkksM+s ftykn.Mkf/kdkjh] ftyk&Hkksiky us jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e 1980 dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ lgifBr mi/kkjk ¼3½ ds varxZr vkids fo#) fujks/k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA 2@& vr,o mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds vuqlj.k esa eSa] r:.k dqekj fiFkksM+s ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] ftyk&Hkksiky ,rnOnkjk vkidks lwfpr djrk gw¡ fd vkids fo#) mDr fujks/k vkns'k fuEu vk/kkj ij vk/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS % 1- fnukad 3-6-2010 dks vkius ukflj iq= bdcky dks 'kkfcj dh ck[ky U;w cSad dkyksuh tgkaxhjkckn esa jksddj xanh xanh xkfy;ka nsdj ekjihV dh ,oa tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nhA vkids bl ÑR; ls {ks= esa Hk; ,oa vkrad O;kIr gksdj yksd O;oLFkk dks [krjk mRiUu gks x;kA 2- fnukad 27-1-2011 dks vkius vius lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk Hkksyw iq= eks- jbZl dks ppZ jksM tgkaxhjkckn esa tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj xaHkhj pksaV ig¡wpkbZ ftlls {ks= esa Hk; ,oa vkrad O;kIr gks x;kA 3- fnukad 8-11-2011 dks vki nqxkZth ds eafnj ds ikl voS/k ns'kh dV~Vk o jkm.M fy, gq;s ?kwe jgs Fks ftlls {ks= esa Hk; O;kIr gks x;kA 4- fnukad 5-1-2014 dks vkius xSl jkgr vLirky ifjlj tgkaxhjkckn esa bjQku dks xanh xanh xkfy;ka nsdj ekjihV dh ,oa tku ls ekjus dh èkedh nh vkids bl ÑR; ls {ks= esa Hk; ,oa vkrad O;kIr gksdj yksd O;oLFkk dks [krjk mRiUu gks x;kA 5- fnukad 5-7-2017 dks vkius vius lkFkh ds lkFk feydj lkxj esa jRrq ;kno iq= ';ke laqnj ;kno dks ;kno dkyksuh lkxj esa gR;k dj nh ftlls {ks= esa HkxnM+ ep xbZ vkSj dkuwu O;oLFkk dks vlUu [krjk mRiUu gks x;kA 3@ vkids ÑR; ÑR;ksa ls {ks= dh yksd O;oLFkk dks [krjk mRiUu gks x;k RkFkk tueku'k dh Hkkouk esa ng'kr dk ekgksy mRiUuk gqvkA 4@ os C;kSjs ftudk bl ekeys ls laca/k gS uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s gSaA 5@ vkidks mDr vkns'k ds fo#) jkT; 'kklu] lfpo] e-iz- 'kklu] x`g foHkkx] ea=ky;] Hkksiky dks vH;kosnu djus dk vf/kdkj gSA vkidks vius izdj.k ds laca/k esa fuosnu djus ds fy, ea=.kk cksMZ ds le{k Loa; mifLFkr gksus dk Hkh vf/kdkj gSA 6@ vkidks mDr vkns'k ds fo#) Hkkjr ljdkj] x`g ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dks vH;kosnu djus dk vf/kdkj gSA vuqlwph 1- iqfyl v/kh{kd nf{k.k Hkksiky ds izfrosnu Øekad iq-v- @Hkks¼n½@jh@,u,l,@19@2019 fnukad 14-8-2019 mles mYysf[kr izn'kZ lfgrA 2- Jh ohjsUnz flag pkSgku] Fkkuk izHkkjh Fkkuk&tgkaxhjkckn] Hkksiky ds 'kiFk iwoZd dFku fnukad 15-8-2019 dh lR;izfrfyfiA ¼r:.k dqekj fiFkksM+s½ ftykn.Mkf/kdkjh] Hkksiky 6. In that view of the matter, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without having regard to the relevant provisions of the Act and Article 22(4) and (5) of the Constitution of India by the District Magistrate, Bhopal, as well as by the State Govt. before approving the aforesaid order. 7. In view of the aforesaid reasons and in the light of the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akash Yadav v. State of M.P. in W.P. No. 2695/2019, this petition is allowed and the detention order, annexure P-2 so also the approval orders, annexures R-3 and R-4 are hereby set aside. The detenue, husband of the petitioner, be released from detention and set at liberty forthwith, if not required, in any other offence.