Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Pawar S/O Shri Gajraj Singh Pawar ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19501
1 WP-21458-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 25th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21458 of 2025
RAHUL PAWAR S/O SHRI GAJRAJ SINGH PAWAR THROUGH NEXT
OF KIN BRAJRAJ
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Arjun Pathak -
Advocate counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The present writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus under Article
226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order of detention dated 12.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2 / District
Magistrate, Dewas in Case No. 290/Reader/NSA/2025 under Section 3(2) of
the National Security Act (NSA), 1980 inter alia on the ground that he has
not been advised to submit a representation before the District Magistrate
against the order of detention.
2. Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19501
2 WP-21458-2025
petitioner, submits that immediately after the passing of the detention order,
the petitioner has been detained and sent to the Central Jail. FIR No.
288/2025 was registered on 12.06.2025 at 18:29 hours, but the petitioner was
not taken into police or judicial custody until the filing of the present
petition. After filing the present petition, the respondents apprehended
quashment of the detention order and immediately took him into custody by
way of formal arrest in the aforesaid FIR.
3. So far as the criminal record of the petitioner is concerned, Shri
Baheti, learned Senior Counsel, submits that merely on the basis of the
criminal record, the order of detention ought not to have been passed. If the
respondents want to keep the petitioner in custody, they may oppose the bail
application. But keeping the petitioner in detention under the NSA, 1980 is
nothing but violation of fundamental rights which are guaranteed under the
Constitution of India. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel
has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in
case of Kamal Khare vs. State of MP 2021(2) MPLJ 554 wherein it has been
held that the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate or the
Commissioner of Police is obliged to communicate to the detenue about
detenue's right to make representation to him until the detention order passed
by him is approved by the State Government within 12 days and non-
communication thereof would vitiate the detention order as guaranteed under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
4. Per contra, Shri Bhuwan Gautam, Government Advocate
appearing for the State, opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19501
3 WP-21458-2025
petitioner has a criminal history. There are as many as eight criminal cases
registered against him, out of which three cases are of attempt to murder and
one case is of abduction of a Police Officer. Therefore, such a criminal is
liable to be kept under detention in the interest of security. Learned
Government Advocate submits that there is subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority before passing of the order of detention, which is not
liable to judicial scrutiny by this court. The order of detention has been
approved by the Advisory Board comprising three sitting Judges of this High
Court, and thereafter, a confirmation order has been passed by the State
Government. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the
petitioner has not submitted any representation before the State Government
or the Central Government seeking revocation of the order of detention
under Section 12 of the NSA, 1980. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused
to the petitioner even if he was not informed about his right to submit a
representation to the detaining authority. The petitioner was given full
opportunity to present his defence before the learned Advisory Board. Now,
the order of detention has been approved and confirmed under the NSA,
1980; therefore, the sole ground taken by the petitioner does not survive.
Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the rival contentions.
5. The Constitution of India protects the liberty of an individual.
Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law. In matters of
preventive detention, such as this, there is deprivation of liberty without trial,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19501
4 WP-21458-2025
and subsequent safeguards are provided in Article 22 of the Constitution. The
scope of judicial scrutiny of the decision of preventive detention under the
National Security Act is that there must be a reasonable basis for the
detention order, and there must be material to support the same. The Court is
entitled to scrutinize the material relied upon by the authority in coming to
its conclusion, and accordingly determine, if there was an objective basis for
the subjective satisfaction firstly the detaining authority must be satisfied that
the person to be detained is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the
security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of the public order, and secondly the authority must be further
satisfied that it is necessary to detain the said person in order to prevent from
so acting, i.e. from repealing his action.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is under detention by virtue
of order of detention dated 12.06.2025 and FIR No. 288/2025 registered
under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(3), 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 324(4)
of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Therefore, even if the petition is
allowed and the order of detention is quashed, the petitioner would not be
released as he has not even applied for bail in the aforesaid crime. Therefore,
at this stage, there is no violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner
because he is under judicial custody in a criminal case in which he has not
applied for bail to date.
7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has a strong criminal
record. The details of the criminal cases registered against the petitioner are
as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19501
5 WP-21458-2025
Sl.No. FIR No. Sections Status
1 247/2016 307, 294, 34 of IPC Acquitted
307, 34 of IPC
2 295/2019 Pending trial
25 and 27 of the Arms Act
364, 353, 332, 342, 323, 294,
3 1050/2021 Pending trial
506 & 34 of IPC
4 198/2023 294, 323, 327, 506 of IPC Under Investigation
5 219/2016 107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C. Pending
6 493/2019 107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C. Pending
7 260/2022 NSA, 1980 -
8 69/2023 110 of Cr.P.C. Pending
8. Apart from the above, vide order dated 26.12.2023, the petitioner
was externed by the District Magistrate under Section 5(a)&(b) of the
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 for a period of 1 year,
which he did not challenge and had undergone the said period. After
completion of the period of externment, the petitioner again committed two
crimes for which FIRs No. 173/2025 and 288/2025 have been registered.
There appears to be no control over the criminal activities of the petitioner at
the young age of 26 years.
9. So far as it relates to the contention of Shri Baheti, learned
counsel for the petitioner that in the detention order detenue was not
informed about his rights to submit a representation, it is correct that there
was no mention about his right to submit a representation before the
detaining authority, but he was informed about his right to submit a
representation to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of India;
Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh,
Bhopal and before the Advisory Board as well. But the petitioner did not
avail himself of the aforesaid right available to him. Therefore, by not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19501
6 WP-21458-2025
submitting a representation to the detaining authority, no prejudice has been
caused to the petitioner.
10. The order of detention was passed on 12.06.2025, which had
been approved by the State Government on 18.06.2025. The grounds of
detention were communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was
placed before the Advisory Board, Jabalpur (MP). On 27.06.2025, the
learned Advisory Board opined that there exists sufficient cause for detention
of the petitioner and it was also observed that in view of the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in case of Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari
vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2015) 13 SCC
722 , the State Government may extend the period of detention upto the
maximum 12 months from the date of detention, but, only after reviewing
the detention before every three months as required under the provisions of
the National Security Act, 1980. Thereafter, the Home Department of
Madhya Pradesh sent the entire record by way of speed post to the State
Government. Therefore, there is substantial compliance with the provisions
of the NSA, 1980, in this matter. [Emphasis Supplied]
11. In view of the above discussion, finding no ground for
interference, the petition is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
