Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shivang Bhargav S/O Shri Manish Bhargav ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 September, 2025

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                                                1                     WP NO. 12933/2025



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT G WA L I O R
                                                                 BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                                                      &
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 12933 of 2025
                            SHIVANG BHARGAV S/O SHRI MANISH BHARGAV AGE 20 R/O
                            GRAM DADUMAR BHITARWAR, DISTT. GWALIOR AT PREESNT
                                                  Versus
                                 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Shri Rohit Tiwari and Shri Rajesh Kushwah - Advocates for the petitioner.
                            Shri Sohit Mishra - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                 ORDER

(Passed on this 4th day of September 2025)

Per: Justice Anand Pathak The petitioner has filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India challenging the order dt.28.11.2024 passed by the

District Magistrate Gwalior under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act,

1980 (for brevity "NSA"), by which the petitioner has been ordered to be

detained for a period of three months in Central Jail Rewa. Petitioner has also

challenged the order dt.27.02.2025 passed by the District Magistrate,

Gwalior, whereby the period of detention has been extended for a period of

three months.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is resident of village Dadumar,

Tahsil Bhitarwar, District Gwalior and at present, resident of Koteshwar

Colony, Bahodapur, Gwalior The petitioner has falsely been implicated in

various cases, and in all nine cases have been registered against the petitioner

in district Gwalior, out of which he has not been found guilty in five cases

whereas other four cases are pending. On the basis of aforesaid cases, on the

recommendation of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 passed the impugned

order dt.28.11.2024 thereby directing detention of the petitioner for a period

of three months in Central Jail Rewa. When the petitioner was in Central Jail

Rewa, further order dt.27.02.2025 has been passes thereby the period of

detention has been extended for a period of three months i.e. from 28.02.2025

to 28.05.2025. Petitioner has submitted a representation through his Advocate

on 10.02.2025 for cancellation of aforesaid orders, but to no avail.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that till date

petitioner has not been convicted by any Court of law in any of the cases

registered against him, even then he has been directed to be detained against

the settled principle of law. The impugned orders have been passed by the

respondents ignoring the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as

this Court. The petitioner is a student and due to such detention order his

education is adversely getting affected, which is detrimental to his future life.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the detention order has been passed on 28.11.2024, whereas the matter was

reported only on 02.12.2024. Thus, there is delay of four days, which has not

been explained. To bolster his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment

of the Apex Court in the case of Hetchin Haokip v. State of Manipur (2018)

9 SCC 562.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order is in

violation of Section 2 (5) of the NSA, as it makes it mandatory for the State

Government to forward the report to the Central Government within seven

days, whereas in the present case, the report was forwarded to the Central

Government on 06.12.2024 i.e. after nine days. For this contention, he placed

reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Ramzan

vs. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 726.

6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as

per Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, the grounds of detention must

be communicated to the detenue and he must be afforded early opportunity to

make a representation.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State has denied all

the averments of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a habitual

offender and is engaged in criminal activities. Total 9 cases have been

registered against him for the years 2023 and 2024. Before passing the

impugned orders, relevant procedure prescribed under the Act has been

followed in its letter and spirit. The detention order is just and proper and

there is no illegality in the same. Looking to the possibility of disturbing law

and order situation in the area, the District Magistrate has rightly passed the

order extending the period of detention for three months. Thus, no

interference is called for in the impugned orders. On such grounds, he prayed

for dismissal of the petition.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From the rival submissions and record, it appears that case of the

petitioner was proceeded with following list of dates and events, which are as

under :-

S.No. Date Events Petitioner fired in public and uploaded the video of firing on social 1 16.11.2024 media 2 18.11.2024 Petitioner was detained under Section 25/27 of Arms Act.

T.I., Police Station Bahodapur sent report to S.P. Gwalior with CD, 3 19.11.2024 news paper cuttings and social media comments.

4 20.11.2024 S.P. Gwalior forwarded report District Magistrate Gwalior District Magistrate Gwalior passed the detention order under 5 28.11.2024 Section 3 (3) of NSA Notice was served on petitioner and he was shifted from Gwalior to 6 29.11.2024 Rewa jail.

District Magistrate Rewa reported detention order to the State 7 02.12.2024 Government under Section 3 (4) of NSA State Government forwarded report to the Central Government

8. 06.12.2024 under Section 3 (5) of NSA.

Appropriate Government placed detention order and grounds on

9. 16.12.2024 which the order has been made to the Advisory Board. Advisory Board gave its opinion and found sufficient cause for

10. 10.01.2025 detention of petitioner.

11 13.01.2025 Appropriate Government passed order under Section 12 of the NSA.

10. From the perusal of above time line, it appears that all proceedings

were undertaken by the respondents within time frame. He was detained on

28.11.2024 under NSA. Thereafter report was sent under Section 3 (4) of

NSA within four days i.e. 02.12.2024. Word 'forthwith' figures in Section 3

(4) of the NSA and it means that it has to be sent without delay. 28th

November was Thursday. 30th November was Saturday and 1st December

was Sunday. Therefore, looking to the two holidays in between, report sent

on 02.12.2024 and it would be construed that without any delay, matter was

sent to the State Government forthwith. Although Section 3 (5) of the NSA

provides seven days' time line, but it appears that within next four days i.e. on

06.12.2024, State Government approved it and sent to the Central

Government as per Section 3 (5) of the NSA.

11. On 16.12.2024 vide Annexure R/14, matter was placed before

Advisory Board. Therefore, from the document (Annexure R/14) it appears

that it was placed within 18 days from the date of detention whereas three

weeks' time (around 21 days) is provided under Section 10 of NSA.

Therefore, placement of case was within limitation under Section 10 of the

NSA.

12. Advisory Board had to take decision within seven weeks (around 49

days) from the date of detention of the person concerned. Advisory Board

passed the order on 10.01.2025. Meaning thereby that information was given

on 43th day, therefore it was also within limitation.

13. The word "forthwith" has been explained by the Apex Court in the

case of Hetchin Haokip v. State of Manipur (2018) 9 SCC 562, relevant

para of which is as under :-

"16. The expression "forthwith" under Section 3 (4), must be interpreted to mean within reasonable time and without any undue delay. This would not mean that the detaining authority has a period of twelve days to submit the report (with grounds) to the State Government from the date of detention. The detaining authority must furnish the report at the earliest possible. Any delay between the date of detention and the date of submitting the report to the State Government, must be due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the authority and not because of administrative laxity."

14. So far as grounds of detention are concerned, total nine cases were

registered against the petitioner in which two cases were under Section 307 of

IPC and seven cases were under Arms Act in different police stations. His

video indicates that he opened fire in residential area challenging the police

and uploaded video creating terror and fear amongst residents living in the

vicinity. He was a threat to public order. Therefore, he was rightly detained

for NSA. Some times offences are grievous and some times, the manner in

which person behaves (with criminal antecedents) also creates fear amongst

people. Therefore, for maintaining public order, peace and tranquility in the

region, this is a restraining step required in attending set of facts. If this Court

goes into the nature of allegations, then it may go in the realm of subjectivity

because authorities always assess the situation and thereafter decide to act