SHADAB S/O AKHTAR BEG Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Shadab has challenged the order dated 31/1/2013 passed by the State Government under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 detaining the petitioner for a period of one year.

(2.) Brief facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner is a 24 year old youth and respondent No.3 Superintendent of Police, District Collectorate, Indore has stated that there are several cases registered against the present petitioner especially in the police station at Pandharinath. Whereas in fact the petitioner has been acquitted from three of the major offences registered against him and in the remaining two cases the offence has been registered on the basis of false complaint filed by the paternal aunt of the petitioner Parveen Beg w/o Sarvar Beg. There are property dispute between the parties and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the accused petitioner has contended that the offence pertaining to year 1995 registered at Case No.179/99 the petitioner had already been acquitted from the offence. So also the petitioner has been acquitted from the offence registered at Criminal Case No.1120/99 and similarly it was the fate of the Sessions Trial No.279/97. The family is the owner of several properties situate at Bombay Bazar and portion of it has been left to him by the great grand father of the accused. Counsel submitted that Athar Beg, the husband of Parveen Beg is himself a notorious and listed criminal of police station Pandharinath. Counsel submitted that the news paper has categorically mentioned that the petitioner was not present on the spot when the shooting incident occurred. Counsel prayed that the detention order passed by the Collector is, therefore, bad in law. The State Advisory Board has considered the fact at the time of granting consent proper opportunity of hearing has not been granted to the petitioner to make proper representation against the detention order. The respondent/State has failed to consider the material on record, Counsel stressing the fact under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, the detaining authority has not considered all the facts and there wasn't sufficient material on record to indicate that the petitioner was likely to indulge any anti social activity and therefore, such a detention order be set aside. To bolster his submissions, Counsel relied on several authorities such as :