Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Alias Dada vs Union Of India And Others on 20 December, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.18054 of 2024 (O&M)
Reserved on: 24.09.2024
Date of decision: 20th December, 2024
PARVEEN ALIAS DADA
..Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Siddharth Sihag, Advocate
Mr. Nitin Kadyan, Advocate
Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India
with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate (through v.c.)
for respondent-Union of India.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
* * * * *
SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
1. This petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India assails the order of preventive detention passed by District Magistrate,
Rohtak, on 01.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent orders of State
Government approving and extending the detention.
1 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -2-
CONTENTS & CONTEXT
2. Several grounds in support of challenge to the aforesaid are made
by learned counsel for petitioner, which are delineated below:-
(i) The nature of offences registered against the petitioner are
insufficient to give rise to a cause of breach of public order.
(ii) The impugned order of preventive detention is passed in
violation of Section 3(5) of National Security Act, 1980
(NSA for brevity) in as much as failure of State
Government to forward the order of preventive detention
together with its grounds to the Central Government within
a period of seven days.
(iii) The order of preventive detention is vitiated since no mind
was applied to the fact that petitioner was already in
custody when impugned order was passed.
(iv) The impugned order does not pass the tests laid down by
the decision of Apex Court in Ameena Begum Vs. The
State of Telangana and others, (2023) 9 SCC 587.
(v) There is no live and proximate link between proposal made
by Superintendent of Police, Rohtak as early as on
05.03.2024 while the impugned order of preventive
detention was passed by District Magistrate, Rohtak, as late
as 01.05.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of
admission and final disposal.
2 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -3-
3.1 The grounds demonstrated by State in support of impugned order
of preventive detention are described below in a tabular illustration: –
Sr. FIR No. & details Brief case summary Arrest Status
No.
1 FIR No.55 dated Petitioner and co-accused Petitioner was
08.03.2023 u/s 148, Rahul along with 20-25 arrested and granted
149, 307, 506, 120B other people fired multiple bail by the Court.
IPC & Sec 25 & 27 bullets upon complainant Next date is
Arms Act, PS Bahu Ashish. 16.01.2025 fixed for
Akbarpur, Rohtak. hearing.
2 FIR No.45 dt HC Pardeep Petitioner was
14.02.2013 u/s 25 No.1582/RTK, STF Unit, convicted on
Arms Act PS Urban Rohtak got an information 12.02.2015 by the
Estate, Rohtak. from the sources that Court of Sh.
petitioner has an illegal Manjeet Pal, JMIC
weapon, on the Rohtak for a period
information police party of three years
nabbed petitioner with 01
simple
illegal weapon
imprisonment.
3 FIR No.09 dt A group of men fired at the Petitioner was
05.01.2014 u/s husband of the convicted by the
148/149/307 IPC & complainant due to Court of Sh.
25 Arms Act PS City dispute over a rented Ashwani Kumar,
Rohtak. house. Petitioner was ASJ, Rohtak on
involved in firing bullets 30.08.2017 for a
upon the victim. A country period of one-year
made pistol was recovered
rigorous
from petitioner.
imprisonment and
Rs.two thousand
fines.
4 FIR No.95 dt Petitioner had beaten Petitioner was
25.02.2014 u/s complainant while he was acquitted by the Court
148/149/323/506 washing the car and of Sh. Sanjeev Kajla,
IPC, PS City, Rohtak. threatened him to kill and JMIC, Rohtak on
fled away. 14.03.2019.
5 FIR No.169 dt When the complainant Petitioner was
10.04.2015 u/s was going towards his convicted under
147/149/323/341/ home, petitioner along Section 323, 341
506 IPC, PS City, with other 4/5 persons IPC r/w Section 34
Rohtak. came and beat him and IPC on 09.10.2023
threatened to kill him. by the Court of Smt.
Deepti, CJM,
Rohtak.
6 FIR No.527 dt On 04.09.2015 police Petitioner was
04.09.2015 u/s party received information arrested in the case.
285/34 IPC & 25 from a source that The case is under
Arms Act, PS City, petitioner Ishu and your trial and the next
Rohtak. associates and one other date of hearing is
party from village Bohar 09.01.2025.
fired bullets on each other
and fled away in their
cars.
3 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -4-
7 FIR No.189 dt On 07.08.2016, Petitioner arrested in
07.03.2016 u/s complainant came at his this case and granted
307/34 IPC & 25 liquor shop for cash bail by the Court of
Arms Act, PS collection. Kulbir Dr. Sanjeev Arya,
Barauda, Sonipat. Deshkheda along with his ASJ, Sonepat on
associates came to the 05.09.2023 and next
liquor shop in a car and date is 12.02.2025
fired bullets upon him fixed for hearing.
with an intention to
murder him and ran
away.
8 FIR No.654 dt On 29.09.2016, petitioner Petitioner was
01.10.2016 u/s along with his associates convicted by the
452/506 IPC & 25 came to complainant’s Court of Sh.
Arms Act, PS City, office with weapons and Bharat, JMIC,
Rohtak. asked about him. On the Rohtak on
very next day, he reached 21.09.2018.
to the office, where Chand
s/o Hoshiyar told him that
petitioner along with his
associates came to the
office and threatened to
kill him.
9 FIR No.179 dt On 02.10.2016, The petitioner
06.10.2016 u/s complainant was present arrested but acquitted
323/365/34 IPC, PS in his house. Petitioner by the Court of Sh.
Lakhan Majra, Rohtash r/o Sanghi, Raj Kumar Yadav,
Rohtak. Monty and Bijender s/o ASJ, Rohtak on
Ishwar r/o Nidana came 15.09.2023.
to complainant's house in
a car and asked him to go
with them to settle his car
issue. Thereafter
petitioner blindfolded him
and put him in the car
trunk. On 06.10.2016,
petitioner had thrown him
outside his village.
10 FIR No.686 dt On 29.09.2016 at about The petitioner
14.10.2016 u/s 12 AM, petitioner, arrested and
148/149/452/506 Rajkumar @ Shyamu, convicted by the
IPC & 25 Arms Act, Maan singh, Ravi r/o Court of Sh.
PS City, Rohtak. Sanghi, Sunil s/o Balbir Bharat, JMIC
along with his associates Rohtak on
had entered in 21.09.2018.
complainant's house
forcefully and threatened
to kill her.
11 FIR No.156 dated On 26.02.2017, accused Arrested by acquitted
26.02.2017 u/s 25 Aakashdeep s/o Prem of all charges by the
Arms Act, PS City, Kumar r/o Bagichi Court of Sh.
Rohtak. mohalla, Balmiki Chowk, Amberdeep Singh,
Rohtak, Isho s/o Umed CJM, Fatehabad
r/o Shyam Colony, Rohtak giving petitioner the
and Manish s/o Virender benefit of doubt on
r/o Rajendera colony 09.02.2023.
Rohtak were nabbed by
the police party with
illegal weapons. During
the investigation it was
4 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -5-
revealed that the illegal
weapons seized by the
police were provided by
petitioner.
12 FIR No.768 dated This case was registered Petitioner was
12.11.2017 u/s 174- on the complaint of Sh. convicted under
A IPC, PS City, Sudhir Jakhar, PP Court of Section 174-A IPC
Rohtak. Sh. Yogesh Choudhary, by the Court of Smt.
JMIC, Rohtak, that during Deepti, CJM Rohtak
the trial of case FIR on 20.09.2023.
No.169/15 u/s
323/341/506/34 IPC PS
City, Rohtak, petitioner
and Ravi s/o Ajit had
absconded.
13 FIR No.345 dated This case was registered Petitioner arrested
11.06.2018 u/s 148, on the complaint of and granted bail by
149, 321, 323 IPC, Dharmbir Singh, Deputy the Court of Sh.
PS Shivaji Colony, Superintendent, District Aditya Singh Yadav,
Rohtak. Jail, Rohtak against JMIC, Rohtak on
petitioner, Rahul s/o 28.08.2023 and next
Jagdish r/o Khidwali and date is 24.12.2024
Dheeraj s/o Suresh r/o fixed for hearing.
Dulhera, Rajbir s/o
Krishan r/o Bhagwatipur
for assaulting and injuring
other inmates.
14 FIR No.361 dated This case was registered Petitioner convicted
13.06.2018 u/s on the complaint of Sh. by the Court of Sh.
174A IPC, PS City, Sudhir Jakhar, PP Court, Yogesh Choudhary,
Rohtak. Sh. Yogesh Choudhary, CJM Rohtak on
JMIC, Rohtak that 04.08.2018.
petitioner and Ravi s/o
Ajit had absconded
15 FIR No.161 dated This case was registered Petitioner was
13.04.2019 u/s 386 on the complaint of liquor arrested in the case
IPC, PS Urban contractor Jogender Singh and granted bail by
Estate, Rohtak. r/o Rohtak that he the Court of Sh.
received multiple threat Manglesh Kumar
calls from various Choubey, ACJM,
unknown mobile numbers Rohtak on
and the called introduced 20.12.2023 and next
himself as Anil Chippi date is 24.12.2024
who asked him to quit the fixed for hearing.
liquor contract. He
suspected that the liquor
contractor namely
Ravinder Malik, Paramjet
Tehlan, Jaibhagwan and
Sony also involved in this
matter.
16 FIR No.264 dated Petitioner was an Petitioner was
18.04.2022 u/s 384, accomplice in this case of acquitted by the Court
506 IPC, PS Rohtak extortion and criminal of Smt. Deepti, CJM
City. intimidation to a property Rohtak on
dealer. 04.12.2023.
17 FIR No.459 dated When the complainant in Petitioner was
01.07.2022 u/s 307, FIR No.264 dated arrested and granted
34 IPC & 25 Arms 18.04.2022, PS Rohtak bail by the Court of
5 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -6-
Act, PS City, Rohtak. City, u/s 384, 506 IPC did Sh. Rakesh Kumar
not give the extortion Yadav, Sessions
amount, two masked men Judge, Rohtak on
came to his house on a 01.11.2022 and the
motorbike and incessantly case is adjourned for
fired at him. 15.01.2025.
18 FIR No.7 dated On 04.01.2023, when the Petitioner was
04.01.2023 u/s 148, complainant was present arrested and granted
149, 323, 506 IPC on his plot, petitioner bail by the Court of
PS IMT, Rohtak. came there along with his Smt. Deepti, CJM,
associates and beat him Rohtak on
and threatened him to kill. 30.11.2023 and next
date 17.02.2025 is
fixed for hearing.
19 FIR No.115 dated On 22.06.2023, police Petitioner was
22.06.2023 u/s 25 party nabbed petitioner arrested and granted
Arms Act, PS Bahu with 02 illegal weapons. bail by the Court of
Akbarpur, Rohtak. Sh. Abhimanyu
Rajput, JMIC, Rohtak
on 03.10.2023 and
next date is
21.04.2025.
20 FIR No.80 dated On 08.03.2024, police Petitioner arrested
08.03.2024 u/s 25 party nabbed petitioner and sent to judicial
Arms Act, PS Special with 01 pistol and 04 live custody. Next date of
Cell, Delhi. cartridge. hearing is
30.01.2025.
4. From the aforesaid details it reveals that out of 20 offences
registered against petitioner, four ended in acquittal while in seven offences,
the petitioner was convicted. The offences, which are still pending
investigation/trial against the petitioner, are at Serial No.1, 6, 7, 13, 15, 17, 18,
19 and 20, in the aforesaid table.
5. The affidavit filed by District Magistrate, Rohtak, in response to
the present petition lays emphasis on three offences registered against the
petitioner i.e. FIR No.55, dated 08.03.2023, alleging offences punishable
under Sections 148, 149, 506, 307, 120-B of IPC read with Section 25/27 of
the Arms Act, 1959, FIR No.7, dated 04.01.2023, alleging offences punishable
under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 of IPC and FIR No.80 dated 08.03.2024,
alleging offences punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, to
justify the aura of fear and panic spread by the activities of petitioner while
6 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -7-
committing these offences, which allegedly lead to break down of public
order.
6. This Court is conscious of the law laid down by the Apex Court
where a clear distinction has been made between breach of law and order on
one hand and breach of public order on the other.
7. There are myriads of decisions of Apex Court for explaining the
said distinction holding that the relevant factor to identify breach of public
order is not the number of offences registered against the detenue but the
repercussions entailing the antecedents which jeopardise public order
rendering curtailment of right to liberty of proposed detenue, a dire necessity.
Even a single incident may be enough to breach public order provided its
consequences are enough to instil fear in the minds of the members of the
general public thereby obliging the State/District Magistrate to invoke
extraordinary powers of preventive detention.
8. This Court for convenience and ready reference extracts the
relevant portions of various decisions of the Apex Court on the subtle but
evident distinction between “law & orders” and “public order” as follows: –
i) In Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar and another 1996(1)
SCR 709, it has been held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court as follows: –
“51. We have here a case of detention under Rule
30 of the Defence of India Rules which permits apprehension
and detention of a person likely to act in a manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order. It follows that if such a
person is not detained public disorder is the apprehended
result. Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of
law and order also but disorder is a broad spectrum which
includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the
most serious and cataclysmic happenings. Does the7 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DBCWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -8-
expression “public order’ take in every kind of disorder or
only some? The answer to this serves to distinguish “public
order” from “law and order” because the latter undoubtedly
takes in all of them. Public order if disturbed, must lead to
public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to
public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there
is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with
under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be
detained on the ground that they were disturbing public
order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival
communities and one of them tried to raise communal
passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it
raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples
can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects
order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must
affect the community or the public at large. A mere
disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not
necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India
Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are. A
District Magistrate is entitled to take action under Rule
30(1)(b) to prevent subversion of public order but not in aid of
maintenance of law and order under ordinary
circumstances…………..(emphasis supplied).”
ii) In Arun Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, 1970(1) SCC 98,
it has been held by the Apex Court as follows:-
“3. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia’s case (supra), this
Court pointed out the difference between maintenance of law
and order and its disturbance and the maintenance of public
order and its disturbance. Public order was said to embrace
more of the community than law and order. Public order is
the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country
as a whole or even a specified locality. Disturbance of public
order is to be distinguished, from acts directed against
individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of
causing a general disturbance of public tranquillity. It is the
degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the
community in a locality which determines whether the
disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order. Take
for instance, a man stabs another.
…………..(emphasis supplied).”
8 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -9-
iii) The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohia’s case (supra), was also relied upon by the Apex Court in
a recent decision given in Mallada K.Sri Ram vs. State of
Telangana and others, (2022) SCC Online SC 424.”
9. The Constitution while recognizing the right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India prescribes curtailment of
this right in exceptional circumstances by following due process of law as
contained in Clause (4) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India which reads
thus:-
“22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain
cases:-
(1) xx xx xx
(2) xx xx xx
(3) xx xx xx
(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise
the detention of a person for a longer period than three
months unless–
(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are,
or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as,
Judges of a High Court has reported before the
expiration of the said period of three months that there
is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall
authorise the detention of any person beyond the
maximum period prescribed by any law made by
Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
(b) such person is detained in accordance with the
provisions of any law made by Parliament under sub-
clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order
made under any law providing for preventive detention, the
authority making the order shall, as soon as may be,
communicate to such person the grounds on which the order
has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity
of making a representation against the order.
(6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making
any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose9 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DBCWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -10-
facts which such authority considers to be against the public
interest to disclose.
(7) Parliament may by law prescribe–
(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or
classes of cases in which, a person may be detained
for a period longer than three months under any law
providing for preventive detention without obtaining
the opinion of an Advisory Board in accordance with
the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4);
(b) the maximum period for which any person may in
any class or classes of cases be detained under any
law providing for preventive detention; and
(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in
an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause
(4).Editorial Comment – Article 22 of the Indian
Constitution provides certain safeguards regarding
arrests and detentions. It aims to protect the rights
and liberties of individuals who are arrested or
detained by the authorities.”
10. From the aforesaid it is obvious that the concept of preventive
detention is constitutionally permissible subject to fulfilment of certain
conditions and following the procedures prescribed by law. The law
promulgated by the Parliament relevant to the subject is the National Security
Act, 1980 (for brevity ‘NSA’), which provides a detailed procedure to be
followed, substantial breach of which can lead to vitiation of the order of
preventive detention.
CONSIDERATION
11. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court
needs to analyse the aforesaid five grounds of challenge made by the
petitioner enumerated in paragraph-2 of this order (supra).
12. Taking up the first ground of the nature of offences registered
against the petitioner being insufficient to give rise to a cause of breach of
public order, it is seen from the reply of the respondent-State of Haryana that
10 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -11-
there were 20 cases registered against the petitioner in about last 10 years in
which the petitioner was convicted for the following offences:-
Sr. FIR No. & details Brief case summary Arrest Status
No.
1. FIR No.45 dt HC Pardeep Petitioner was
14.02.2013 u/s 25 No.1582/RTK, STF Unit, convicted on
Arms Act PS Urban Rohtak got an information 12.02.2015 by the
Estate, Rohtak. from the sources that Court of Sh.
petitioner has an illegal Manjeet Pal, JMIC
weapon, on the Rohtak for a period
information police party of three years
nabbed petitioner with 01
simple
illegal weapon
imprisonment.
2 FIR No.09 dt A group of men fired at the Petitioner was
05.01.2014 u/s husband of the convicted by the
148/149/307 IPC & complainant due to Court of Sh.
25 Arms Act PS City dispute over a rented Ashwani Kumar,
Rohtak. house. Petitioner was ASJ, Rohtak on
involved in firing bullets 30.08.2017 for a
upon the victim. A country period of one-year
made pistol was recovered
rigorous
from petitioner.
imprisonment and
Rs. two thousand
fines.
3. FIR No.169 dt When the complainant Petitioner was
10.04.2015 u/s was going towards his convicted under
147/149/323/341/ home, petitioner along Section 323, 341
506 IPC, PS City, with other 4/5 persons IPC r/w Section 34
Rohtak. came and beat him and IPC on 09.10.2023
threatened to kill him. by the Court of Smt.
Deepti, CJM,
Rohtak for
imprisonment of 15
days and fine of
Rs.1000/- each.
4. FIR No. 654 dt On 29.09.2016, petitioner Petitioner was
01.10.2016 u/s along with his associates convicted by the
452/506 IPC & 25 came to complainant’s Court of Sh.
Arms Act, PS City, office with weapons and Bharat, JMIC,
Rohtak. asked about him. On the Rohtak on
very next day, he reached 21.09.2018 and
to the office, where Chand sentenced to the
s/o Hoshiyar told him that
period already
petitioner along with his
undergone by him.
associates came to the
office and threatened to
kill him.
5. FIR No.686 dt On 29.09.2016 at about The petitioner
14.10.2016 u/s 12 AM, petitioner, arrested and
148/149/452/506 Rajkumar @ Shyamu, convicted by the
IPC & 25 Arms Act, Maan singh, Ravi r/o Court of Sh.
PS City, Rohtak. Sanghi, Sunil s/o Balbir Bharat, JMIC
along with his associates Rohtak on
had entered in 21.09.2018 and
complainant's house
11 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -12-
forcefully and threatened sentenced to the
to kill her. period already
undergone by him.
6. FIR No.768 dated This case was registered Petitioner was
12.11.2017 u/s 174- on the complaint of Sh. convicted under
A IPC, PS City, Sudhir Jakhar, PP Court of Section 174-A IPC
Rohtak. Sh. Yogesh Choudhary, by the Court of Smt.
JMIC, Rohtak, that during Deepti, CJM Rohtak
the trial of case FIR on 20.09.2023 and
No.169/15 u/s sentenced to the
323/341/506/34 IPC PS
period already
City, Rohtak, petitioner
undergone by him.
and Ravi s/o Ajit had
absconded.
7. FIR No.361 dated This case was registered Petitioner-Parveen
13.06.2018 u/s on the complaint of Sh. convicted by the
174A IPC, PS City, Sudhir Jakhar, PP Court, Court of Sh. Yogesh
Rohtak. Sh. Yogesh Choudhary, Choudhary, CJM
JMIC, Rohtak that Rohtak on
petitioner and Ravi s/o 04.08.2018 and
Ajit had absconded co-accused Ravi has
been sentenced to
undergone for the
period from
29.07.2024 to
02.12.2024.
13. Besides suffering the above convictions, the petitioner was
acquitted in the following offences:-
Sr. FIR No. & details Brief case summary Arrest Status
No.
1. FIR No. 95 Petitioner had beaten Petitioner was
dt 25.02.2014 u/s complainant while he was acquitted by the Court
148/149/323/506 washing the car and of Sh. Sanjeev Kajla,
IPC, PS City, Rohtak. threatened him to kill and JMIC, Rohtak on
fled away. 14.03.2019.
2. FIR No.179 dt On 02.10.2016, The petitioner
06.10.2016 u/s complainant was present arrested but acquitted
323/365/34 IPC, PS in his house. Petitioner by the Court of Sh.
Lakhan Majra, Rohtash r/o Sanghi, Raj Kumar Yadav,
Rohtak. Monty and Bijender s/o ASJ, Rohtak on
Ishwar r/o Nidana came 15.09.2023.
to complainant's house in
a car and asked him to go
with them to settle his car
issue. Thereafter
petitioner blindfolded him
and put him in the car
trunk. On 06.10.2016,
petitioner had thrown him
outside his village.
3. FIR No.156 dated On 26.02.2017, accused Arrested but
26.02.2017 u/s 25 Aakashdeep s/o Prem acquitted of all
Arms Act, PS City, Kumar r/o Bagichi charges by the Court
Rohtak. mohalla, Balmiki Chowk, of Sh. Amberdeep
12 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -13-
Rohtak, Isho s/o Umed Singh, CJM,
r/o Shyam Colony, Rohtak Fatehabad giving
and Manish s/o Virender petitioner the benefit
r/o Rajendera colony of doubt on
Rohtak were nabbed by 09.02.2023.
the police party with
illegal weapons. During
the investigation it was
revealed that the illegal
weapons seized by the
police were provided by
petitioner.
4. FIR No.264 dated Petitioner was an Petitioner was
18.04.2022 u/s 384, accomplice in this case of acquitted by the Court
506 IPC, PS Rohtak extortion and criminal of Smt. Deepti, CJM
City. intimidation to a property Rohtak on
dealer. 04.12.2023.
14. Whereas the remaining offences, where trial is pending, are as
follows: –
Sr. FIR No. & details Brief case summary Arrest Status
No.
1 FIR No.55 dated Petitioner and co-accused Petitioner was
08.03.2023 u/s 148, Rahul along with 20-25 arrested and granted
149, 307, 506, 120B other people fired multiple bail by the Court.
IPC & Sec 25 & 27 bullets upon complainant Next date is
Arms Act, PS Bahu Ashish. 16.01.2025 fixed for
Akbarpur, Rohtak. hearing.
2. FIR No.527 dt On 04.09.2015 police Petitioner was
04.09.2015 u/s party received information arrested in the case.
285/34 IPC & 25 from a source that The case is under
Arms Act, PS City, petitioner Ishu and your trial and next date of
Rohtak. associates and one other hearing before the
party from village Bohar trial Court is
fired bullets on each other 09.01.2025.
and fled away in their
cars.
3. FIR No.189 dt On 07.08.2016, Petitioner arrested in
07.03.2016 u/s complainant came at his this case and granted
307/34 IPC & 25 liquor shop for cash bail by the Court of
Arms Act, PS collection. Kulbir Dr. Sanjeev Arya,
Barauda, Sonipat. Deshkheda along with his ASJ, Sonepat on
associates came to the 05.09.2023 and next
liquor shop in a car and date for hearing is
fired bullets upon him fixed as 12.02.2025.
with an intention to
murder him and ran
away.
4. FIR No.345 dated This case was registered Petitioner arrested
11.06.2018 u/s 148, on the complaint of and granted bail by
149, 321, 323 IPC, Dharmbir Singh, Deputy the Court of Sh.
PS Shivaji Colony, Superintendent, District Aditya Singh Yadav,
Rohtak. Jail, Rohtak against JMIC, Rohtak on
petitioner, Rahul s/o 28.08.2023 and next
Jagdish r/o Khidwali and date is 24.12.2024
13 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -14-
Dheeraj s/o Suresh r/o fixed for hearing.
Dulhera, Rajbir s/o
Krishan r/o Bhagwatipur
for assaulting and injuring
other inmates.
5. FIR No.161 dated This case was registered Petitioner was
13.04.2019 u/s 386 on the complaint of liquor arrested in the case
IPC, PS Urban contractor Jogender Singh and granted bail by
Estate, Rohtak. r/o Rohtak that he the Court of Sh.
received multiple threat Manglesh Kumar
calls from various Choubey, ACJM,
unknown mobile numbers Rohtak on
and the called introduced 20.12.2023 and next
himself as Anil Chippi date is 24.12.2024
who asked him to quit the fixed for hearing.
liquor contract. He
suspected that the liquor
contractor namely
Ravinder Malik, Paramjet
Tehlan, Jaibhagwan and
Sony also involved in this
matter.
6. FIR No.459 dated When the complainant in Petitioner was
01.07.2022 u/s 307, FIR No.264 dated arrested and granted
34 IPC & 25 Arms 18.04.2022, PS Rohtak bail by the Court of
Act, PS City, Rohtak. City, u/s 384, 506 IPC did Sh. Rakesh Kumar
not give the extortion Yadav, Sessions
amount, two masked men Judge, Rohtak on
came to his house on a 01.11.2022 and the
motorbike and incessantly case is adjourned for
fired at him. 15.01.2025.
7. FIR No.7 dated On 04.01.2023, when the Petitioner was
04.01.2023 u/s 148, complainant was present arrested and granted
149, 323, 506 IPC on his plot, petitioner bail by the Court of
PS IMT, Rohtak. came there along with his Smt. Deepti, CJM,
associates and beat him Rohtak on
and threatened him to kill. 30.11.2023 and next
date is fixed as
17.02.2025 for
hearing.
8. FIR No.115 dated On 22.06.2023, police Petitioner was
22.06.2023 u/s 25 party nabbed petitioner arrested and granted
Arms Act, PS Bahu with 02 illegal weapons. bail by the Court of
Akbarpur, Rohtak. Sh. Abhimanyu
Rajput, JMIC, Rohtak
on 03.10.2023 and
next date is
21.04.2025.
9. FIR No.80 dated On 08.03.2024, police Petitioner arrested
08.03.2024 u/s 25 party nabbed petitioner and sent to judicial
Arms Act, PS Special with 01 pistol and 04 live custody. Next date of
Cell, Delhi. cartridge. hearing before the
trial Court is
30.01.2025.
14 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -15-
15. In the backdrop of the aforesaid convictions in cases mentioned in
paragraph-12 of this order, the respondent-State has laid emphasis on three
FIRs registered against the petitioner.
i) FIR No. 55 dated 08.03.2023 under Sections 148/149/307/506/120-B
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act,
registered at Police Station Bahu Akbarpur, Rohtak;
(TRIAL BEING PENDING)
This FIR arises out of a recent incident which led to formation of
an opinion by the competent authority that allowing the petitioner to
enjoy his right to personal liberty would be prejudicial to the same right
of the society at large. Thus, there is a need to elaborate the said
incident and understand the consequences, this incident casts over the
peace and tranquillity and public order in the society.
This FIR stems from an incident of 07.03.2023 when the
complainant received a call from the petitioner and co-accused Rahul
threatening the complainant of dire consequences followed by the
incident which took place on the same day at 12.40 AM midnight when
the petitioner along with co-accused Rahul and 22 to 25 other persons
came to the house of complainant, exhorted the complainant to come
out and fired 25 rounds of bullet at the complainant. Empty shells were
recovered from the place of incident. The CCTV footage recovered
during investigation of the said incident revealed 22 to 25 persons
approaching the complainant house in four vehicles and indulging in
indiscriminate firing towards the house of the complainant. After
investigation, 13 accused persons were arrested which led to filing of
three charge-sheets inter-alia against the petitioner which were
submitted in Court on 16.08.2023.
15 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -16-
The aforesaid incident dated 07.03.2023 as revealed by the
State in its reply created a sense of fear and panic among the public at
large. After the said incident, it is alleged that the village where the
incident took place wore a deserted look for many days as the villagers
feared to step out of their homes. Additional police force was deployed
in the village as well as at the house of the complainant for restoration
of peace. It is also alleged in the reply that this incident created shock
waves amongst the residents of the village.
ii) FIR No. 80 dated 08.03.2024 under Section 25 of the Arms Act,
Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, (trial pending):-
In the aforesaid incident relating to FIR No. 55 dated 08.03.2023,
the petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 07.12.2023 but the
petitioner misused the bail bonds conditions by committing further
crime of having in his possession illicit firearm and misusing the same,
for which this FIR No. 80 dated 08.03.2024 was registered. In this FIR,
it was revealed that during investigation, a country made weapon and
four live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the petitioner
who was planning to commit murder of the members of his rival gang
by using illicit firearms.
iii) FIR No. 7 dated 04.01.2023 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, Police Station IMT Rohtak (trial pending):-
This FIR was registered on 04.01.2023 due to an incident
where the petitioner committed an offence after being released on bail
from judicial custody by misusing the conditions of bail bonds in an
earlier offence qua FIR No. 459 dated 01.07.2022 under Sections 307
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act,
registered at Police Station City Rohtak.
16 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -17-
Reply of the respondent-State of Haryana further reveals
that the petitioner has been continuously indulging in repeated offences
while being an active member of ‘Azad Gang’ and the factum of the
petitioner being in custody does not deter the petitioner’s tendency to
indulge in further crime. Reply further reveals that large number of calls
were exchanged between the petitioner and co-accused Pawan and Raj
Kumar alias Shyamu who are active members of Azad Gang during
January-2023 to January-2024.
Reply also reveals that the petitioner despite being in or out
of custody is highly active on social media platform like Instagram and
Facebook where he is seen brandishing illicit fire arms, taking pride in
being a Gangster, showing no remorse for the crimes committed by him.
The video clips uploaded on social media led to influencing the young
and immature minds of the youth of the area concerned inducing them
to commit crime. The petitioner also has a large fan following on the
social media and therefore, there is a high possibility of a large number
of youth deviating from righteous and virtuous path and getting sucked
into the quagmire of the dark world of crime.
iv) Another instance has been cited by the State in its reply that when the
petitioner was released on bail from District Jail, Sunaria, District
Rohtak on 22.12.2023, a huge crowd of persons with criminal
antecedents gathered outside to give a Hero’s welcome to the petitioner.
The video-clip of this welcome was posted on the Instagram page. This
caused huge ruckus outside the jail premises compelling the police to
deploy additional force to restore public order. Upon verifying the
names of the participants of this welcome group, it was found that 20
persons in the group had criminal antecedents.
17 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -18-
16. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, it is obvious that the
nature of crimes registered against the petitioner may not ostensibly
appear to be serious since they do not attract a sentence of more than
2-3 years (except offence punishable under Section 307 IPC) but the
sense of fear and terror arising therefrom was taken note of by the
competent authority to arrive at the satisfaction that if an order of
preventive detention is not passed, then the petitioner would commit
further offences of similar or graver nature which can be prejudicial to
public order.
Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the
consequences, the aftermath and the fear and terror resulting from the
acts of the petitioner while committing various offences were sufficient
for the competent authority to form an opinion in the interest of
maintaining public order by passing order of preventive detention with
the ultimate object of dissuading petitioner from committing further
breach of public order.
17. Coming to the other ground of procedural lapse in passing of the
impugned order of preventive detention i.e. violation of Section 3(5) of
NSA, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is mandatory
upon the State Government to report, to the Central Government
together with the grounds on which the order of preventive detention is
passed, within seven days of the approval by the State Government of
the said order.
17.1. It is urged by petitioners that State Government approved the order of
preventive detention on 08.05.2024 whereafter it was forwarded to the
Government of India on 16.05.2024 and after receipt of the same by the
Government of India on 17.05.2024, the Government of India concurred
18 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -19-
with the opinion of the State Government on 20.05.2024. In this factual
background, it is contended that forwarding to the Government of India
by the State Government was made after seven days and thus the order
of preventive detention stands vitiated.
17.2 It is an admitted position that the State Government forwarded the
approval of orders of preventive detention with supportive grounds,
after a period of seven days. The delay thus caused is attributed to the
State Government in forwarding the approval of State Government with
supportive material, beyond a period of seven days as prescribed in
Section 3(5) of the NSA.
17.3 State Government in its reply has not denied the aforesaid delay but
instead has laid stress on the seriousness of certain allegations arising
out of the incidents as narrated above, which were likely to adversely
affecting public order if the petitioner was not preventively detained.
17.4 Thus, undoubtedly there is delay, but the delay is only of (1) day. Seven
days if calculated from 08.05.2024 when the State Government
approved order of preventive detention, comes to 15.05.2024. The State
Government forwarded the preventive detention order along with its
approval and supportive material on 16.05.2024 to the Government of
India, the delay thus is only of (1) day.
17.5 No doubt, the Apex Court in Ameena Begum vs. The State of
Telengana and others (supra) has held that the timeline prescribed by
NSA is to be strictly adhered to but considering the fact that this Court
is upholding the order of preventive detention on-merits, disturbing the
same on single day delay in forwarding by State Government to
Government of India would be travesty of justice. For ready reference
and convenience, the operative paragraph-28 of Ameena Begum vs.
19 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -20-
The State of Telengana and others (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“28. In the circumstances of a given case, a constitutional
court when called upon to test the legality of orders of
preventive detention would be entitled to examine whether:
28.1. The order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit
subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of
such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or
law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is
predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the
power not being satisfied;
28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining
authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances
and the same is not based on material extraneous to the
scope and purpose of the statute;
28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the purpose
for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper
purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra
vires;
28.4. The detaining authority has acted independently or
under the dictation of another body;
28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on
materials which are of rationally probative value, and the
detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as
per the statutory mandate;
28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind
existence of a live and proximate link between the past
conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or
is based on material which is stale;
28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction
is/are such which an individual, with some degree of
rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with
the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in
respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached;
28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive
detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and
relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the
satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to
make a suitable representation; and
20 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -21-
28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law, have been
strictly adhered to.”
17.6 From the aforesaid verdict of the Apex Court, it is obvious that the
Constitutional Courts are entitled to examine inter-alia that the timeline
as provided by NSA has been strictly adhered to or not.
17.7 In the instant case, the timeline provided under Section 3(5) of the NSA
has been exceeded only by one day. The State Government has
succeeded in satisfying this Court that the past action of the petitioner
reflected from various offences registered against him particularly the
offences arising from FIR No. 7 of 2023, FIR No. 55 of 2023 and FIR
No. 80 of 2024 could have entailed breach of public order compelling
the competent authority to take preventive action of invoking Section
3(3) of NSA. Thus, the said ground is decided against the petitioner.
18. Coming to the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the
competent authority in the backdrop of petitioner being in custody when
the order of preventive detention was passed is concerned, the same too
does not impress this Court. The material on record especially the
contents of the reply of the District Magistrate reveals that the offences
registered against the petitioner were not ostensibly serious in nature,
there was all likelihood for the petitioner to be admitted to bail by the
Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, to pre-empt any such possibility
of petitioner enjoying liberty and again becoming a potential danger to
the society at large, the competent authority rightly invoked the
extraordinary power of preventive detention.
19. The last ground raised is the absence of live and approximate link
between the proposal made by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak as
early as on 05.03.2024 while the impugned order of preventive
21 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -22-
detention was passed as late as on 01.05.2024. By so contending,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the proposal of
Superintendent of Police, Rohtak dated 05.03.204 was not acted upon
by the District Magistrate for almost two months, then the emergent
situation which arose on account of likely breach of public order, got
diffused thereby obviating the need for passing of an order of preventive
detention.
19.1. If the proposal of Superintendent of Police, Rohtak is perused, it makes
it clear that the petitioner had indulged in certain acts which disturbed
public order. There were various instances where the petitioner had
breached the terms and conditions of bail to commit subsequent
offences. The petitioner on being released on bail on 22.12.2023
collected huge crowd of people welcoming him as Hero and the said
video clips were made viral on the social platform, which invited large
number of ‘likes’, it was obvious that the youth of the area concerned
are being misled in following nefarious activities of the petitioner. The
District Magistrate took timely steps to prevent the younger generation
from being spoiled any further by passing the impugned order of
preventive detention. The activities of the petitioner had not remained
within the confines of personal rivalry between the complainant and the
petitioner but had assumed wider ramifications where petitioner being
an active member of Azad Gang was committing repeated offences with
impunity. The petitioner was eulogised by the younger generation who
because of being gullible were unknowingly following the wrong path.
It is thus imperative for the District Magistrate to step in and prevent
any further serious crime from being committed by the petitioner by
passing the impugned order of preventive detention.
22 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -23-
20. Once this Court finds that the impugned order of preventive detention
has been passed by applying mind by the District Magistrate for good
and sufficient reasons though subjectively but based on objective
material, this Court deems it appropriate not to interfere with the order
of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate and also the
subsequent orders of confirmation by the higher authorities.
21. Before concluding this Court may observe that the breach of timeline
provided in Section 3(5) of NSA is only marginal and not substantial.
More so, justiciability of an order of preventive detention, cannot be
assessed dehors various compelling circumstances of glaring breach of
public orders faced by District Magistrate, Rohtak.
21.1 In the instant case, various factors which compelled the District
Magistrate to pass the impugned order of preventive detention can
cumulatively be reiterated as the petitioner being an active member of
Azad Gang, repeatedly violating the terms and conditions on which he
was granted bail; the petitioner setting a wrong example for the
youngsters of following the path of crime, the petitioner having suffered
seven convictions in the last 10 years and being subjective to
investigation or criminal trials in 9 offences.
22. In the given facts and circumstances and the attending factual matrix, it
would have been a travesty of justice if the District Magistrate had not
exercised his extra ordinary powers of preventive detention. Thus, this
Court upholds the order of preventive detention and all the subsequent
orders passed by the higher authorities.
23. Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition and the same stands
dismissed.
23 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:171783-DB
CWP-18054-2024 (O&M) -24-
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
(SHEEL NAGU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
JUDGE
20th December, 2024
Ayub/ravinder sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No
Whether reportable √Yes/No
24 of 24
::: Downloaded on – 22-12-2024 07:17:32 :::