Rajesh Thakur @ Bhaiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
1 WP-2986-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
th
ON THE 11 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 2985 of 2026
RAJENDRA THAKUR @ CHHOTU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADEH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Singh, Government Advocate for State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 2986 of 2026
RAJESH THAKUR @ BHAIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Singh, Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
These writ petitions are filed being aggrieved of order dated
6.1.2026 passed by the respondent No.2/District Magistrate,
Jabalpur ordering detention of the petitioner under the provisions
of the National Security Act, 1980 for a period of three months.
2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
2 WP-2986-2026
periodically, the District Magistrate, Jabalpur is enhancing the

period of detention of the petitioner and has enhanced it from time
to time on 1.4.2026 and 6.7.2026 for a further period of three
months each under the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioner
is a peace loving citizen of the Country. His fundamental rights
are being violated by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur for the
reasons other than what have been mentioned in the order of the
preventive detention. The proceedings of preventive detention are
malafide. There is violation of principle of natural justice and no
opportunity of hearing was ever provided to the petitioner.
3 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
District Magistrate, Jabalpur has made a mention of the twenty-
two cases out of which two cases were in the nature of
prohibitionary proceedings under Section 129 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which were initiated in the year
2024 and 2025. The other cases are stale starting from 2001 to
2015. After 2015, two cases were registered; one in 2024
pertaining to Crime No.371/2024 for the offence under Sections
294, 452, 342, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
another pertaining to Crime No.19/2026 for the offence under
Section 296B, 118(1), 351(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances
Act so also under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
3 WP-2986-2026
4 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of

twenty cases, the District Magistrate has shown that thirteen cases
are presently pending trial and one case has been disposed of on
the basis of the compromise whereas in three other cases, the
petitioner has been punished with fine. In one of the cases, the
petitioner was acquitted at the stage of investigation and in two
other cases, the petitioner was honourably acquitted by the
competent Magistrate. According to learned counsel, this very
information is incorrect.
5 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has filed copy of judgments to show that he has been
acquitted in sixteen cases by the competent Courts/Investigating
Agency, while minor penalties, i.e. nominal fines, were imposed
in three cases. In one case i.e. the FIR pertaining to Crime
No.19/2026, investigation is pending. The aforesaid fact
mentioned in the rejoinder has not been rebutted. Thus, it is
submitted that on wrong premise, learned District Magistrate,
Jabalpur has passed an order of preventive detention, which has no
foundation, therefore, that order needs to be set aside.
6 Learned Government Advocate for the State supports the
impugned order and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel
for the petitioner submitting therein that even without there being
a single case registered, if the District Magistrate is of the opinion
that free movement of the petitioner is a risk to the maintenance of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
4 WP-2986-2026
public order then also the petitioner could have been subjected to

the proceedings under the National Security Act, 1980. He points
out that in the return, a clear stance is taken about the activity of
the petitioner and that too how within the jurisdiction of Police
Station-Ghamapur, District Jabalpur, the petitioner was found
involved in a bomb explosion, which resulted in registration of the
FIR against him. The Station House Officer concerned had given a
report, which has been duly examined and forwarded by the
Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur and thereafter the District
Magistrate, Jabalpur made a recommendation for taking
preventive detention action under Section 3(2) of the National
Security Act, 1980, which does not call for any indulgence in the
matter.
7 Learned Government Advocate for the State submits that the
Advisory Board was of the opinion that sufficient cause for
detention of the petitioner is made out and confirmed the detention
order under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The
State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by
Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980
reported the detention order to the Central Government alongwith
the grounds on which the order of preventive detention has been
made in the proforma specified therein. According to learned
Government Advocate, some clerical error will not go in favour of
the petitioner and, therefore, prayer is made to maintain the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
5 WP-2986-2026
of the District Magistrate, Jabalpur.

8 Learned Government Advocate for the State places reliance on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Arun Ghosh versus State of
West Bengal & Others (1970) 1 SCC 98 to contend that detention
is justified if any act of a person is prejudicial to the maintenance
of the public order. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s
detention has been made with a view to maintain public order, no
indulgence is called for.
9 Intervenor Ms.Neelam Thadani, whose application was
allowed by the High Court, has objected to the prayer made in
these writ petitions and has sought dismissal of the present writ
petitions submitting therein that these writ petitions have been
filed in abuse of the process of law.
10 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the material available on record.
11 The City Superintendent of Police-Gohalpur, Division-
Jabalpur vide order dated 6.1.2026 gave a list of twenty criminal
cases and two more cases for the prohibitive action where
Istighasas were filed in the year 2024 and 2025 to point out that
the acts of the petitioners are against the maintenance of public
order. On 4.1.2026, the petitioner had thrown a country made
bomb at the house of the complainant causing heavy explosion
and creating fear in the minds of the general public. His acts are
not sporadic but habitual and repetitive, therefore, a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
6 WP-2986-2026
recommendation was made to take action against the petitioner.

The aforesaid report of the City Superintendent of Police-
Gohalpur, Division-Jabalpur was as it is forwarded by the
Additional Superintendent of Police (City) Jabalpur on 6.1.2026
itself to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. The
Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur on the same day i.e.6.1.2026
forwarded the same to the District Magistrate, Jabalpur. The
sequence and timing of the three different police personnel acting
together on the same day and the language of the three
communications as contained in Annexures R/1 & R/2 reveals
non-application of mind. Thereafter, the District Magistrate,
Jabalpur passed the order of detention on 6.1.2026 invoking the
authority vested in him under Section 3(2) of the National Security
Act, 1980.
12 The non-application of mind is apparent on the face of record
from the order dated 6.1.2026 passed by learned District
Magistrate, Jabalpur as contained in Annexure R/4 wherein it is
shown that the case at Serial Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19 & 20 were subjudice.
13 Contrary to the aforesaid, the petitioner has filed copy of
orders pertaining to Crime No.149/2002, Charge Sheet
No.281/2002, Case No.578/2002 (Serial No.3), Crime
No.914/2002, Case No.1907/2002 (Serial No.4), Crime
No.863/2003, Case No.1329/2003 (Serial No.5), Crime
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
7 WP-2986-2026
No.130/2004, Case No.96/2004 (Serial No.6), Crime

No.272/2006, Case No.17855/2006 (Serial No.11), Crime
No.291/2006, Case No.17856/2006 (Serial No.12), Crime
No.207/2007, Case No.8167/2007 (Serial No.13), Crime
No.309/2009, Case No.7662/2009 (Serial No.14), Crime
No.717/2010, Case No.17058/2010 (Serial No.15), Crime
No.476/2011, Case No.10622/2011 (Serial No.16), Crime
No.655/2014, Case No.15231/2014 (Serial No.17), Crime
No.1/2015, Case No.2013/2015 (Serial No.18), Crime
No.371/2024, Case No.5829/2024 (Serial No.19) and Crime
No.19/2026 (Serial No.20) is still under investigation.
14 It is evident that Crime No.149/2002 is shown to be pending
at Serial No.3, the case number is wrongly mentioned as 578/2002
whereas it is 571/2002 and was decided by the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur Shri P.C.Mishra
vide judgment dated 31.10.2006 and the learned Trial Court
acquitted the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner has been
acquitted in cases mentioned at Serial Nos.4, 5, 6 and 11 whereas
the cases have been shown to be pending. The petitioner has also
been acquitted in cases at Serial Nos.14, 15, 16, 17, 18&19.
15 In R.C.T No.681/2004 pertaining to Crime No.914/2002
dated 7.12.2002 (Serial No.4), learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Jabalpur Shri Krishnadas Mahar vide judgment dated
24.9.2004 recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
8 WP-2986-2026
petitioner.

16 In R.C.T No.7662/2009 (Serial No.14), learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur Shri Rakesh Kumar Maravi vide
judgment dated 13.1.2015 acquitted the petitioner noting a fact
that the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur was
set aside by the Divisional Commissioner in Appeal vide order
dated 27.1.2009.
17 In R.C.T No.10622/2011 (Serial No.16), learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur Shri Vivek Shukla vide judgment
dated 10.1.2012 recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the
petitioner.
18 In Criminal Case No.15231/2014 (Serial No.17), learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur Ms.Kiran Verma vide
judgment dated 13.8.2015 recorded a finding of acquittal on the
basis of a compromise after accepting the compromise application
as the offences were found to be compoundable.
19 In R.C.T No.2013/2015 (Serial No.18), learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal
passed the judgment on 1.9.2015 and acquitted the petitioner from
the charges under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
20 In Criminal Case No.5829/2024 (Serial No.19), learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur Shri Bhupendra Singh
passed the judgment on 13.2.2025 and acquitted the petitioner on
the ground that the complainant Akash Kumar Shrivas himself had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
9 WP-2986-2026
not supported the prosecution case.

21 The aforesaid fact as mentioned in the rejoinder has not been
controverted by the State by filing any additional return.
22 It has come on record that there is manipulation in the CCTV
footage of 4.1.2026 for which the Superintendent of Police,
Jabalpur has already issued a show cause notice to the Sub
Inspector Shri Dinesh Gautam on 24.6.2026.
23 When all these facts are taken into consideration then it is
evident that despite the fact that out of fourteen cases in which
trial is shown to be pending in eleven cases, the petitioner has
been acquitted, leads to a conclusion that while placing the record
of the petitioner, correct facts were not placed before the
competent authority and that clearly suffers from the vice of non-
application of mind.
24 In our opinion, this lacuna of non-application of mind,
arising out of the incorrect supply of data by the concerned City
Superintendent of Police, Gohalpur, District Jabalpur, and its
mechanical forwarding by the Additional Superintendent of Police
and the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate,
Jabalpur, coupled with the District Magistrate's blatant reliance
upon such data without seeking its verification, vitiates the
impugned order of detention. Verification could have been
obtained with the slightest of efforts by accessing the Crime and
Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (for short, “CCTNS”). In
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
10 WP-2986-2026
view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of

detention cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
25 The Apex Court in Paragraph Nos.27, 28, 29, 42 & 66 of
Ameena Begum versus State of Telangana & Others (2023) 9 SCC
587 has held thus:-
“27. Be that as it may, culling out the principles of law flowing
from all the relevant decisions in the field, our understanding of
the law for deciding the legality of an order of preventive
detention is that even without appropriate pleadings to assail such
an order, if circumstances appear therefrom raising a doubt of the
detaining authority misconceiving his own powers, the Court
ought not to shut its eyes; even not venturing to make any attempt
to investigate the sufficiency of the materials, an enquiry can be
made by the Court into the authority’s notions of his power.
Without being remotely concerned about the sufficiency or
otherwise of the materials on which detention has been ordered,
the Court would be justified to draw a conclusion, on proof from
the order itself, that the detaining authority failed to realize the
extent of his own powers. This is quite apart from questioning the
action for want of sufficient materials that were before the
detaining authority. The authority for the detention is the order of
detention itself, which the detenu or the Court can read. Such a
reading of the order would disclose the manner in which the
activity of the detenu was viewed by the detaining authority to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
11 WP-2986-2026
prejudicial to maintenance of public order and what exactly he

intended should not be permitted to happen. Any order of a
detaining authority evincing that the same runs beyond his powers,
as are actually conferred, would not amount to a valid order made
under the governing preventive detention law and be vulnerable on
a challenge being laid.
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;
(28.5) The detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
12 WP-2986-2026
policy or in any other manner not authorized by the governing

statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of
each individual case;
(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
(28.10) The timelines, as provided under the law, have been
strictly adhered to.
29. Should the Court find the exercise of power to be bad and/or
to be vitiated applying any of the tests noted above, rendering the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
13 WP-2986-2026
detention order vulnerable, detention which undoubtedly visits the

person detained with drastic consequences would call for being
interdicted for righting the wrong.
42. Turning our attention to Section 3(1) of the Act, the
Government has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that a goonda
(as in the present case) has to be detained, in order to prevent him
from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. Therefore, we first direct ourselves to the examination of
what constitutes ‘public order’. Even within the provisions of the
Act, the term “public order” has, stricto sensu, been defined in
narrow and restricted terms. An order of detention under Section
3(1) of the Act can only be issued against a detenu to prevent him
“from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order”. “Public order” is defined in the Explanation to
Section 2(a) of the Act as encompassing situations that cause
“harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the
general public or any section thereof or a grave wide-spread
danger to life or public health”.
66. It requires no serious debate that preventive detention,
conceived as an extraordinary measure by the Framers of our
Constitution, has been rendered ordinary with its reckless
invocation over the years as if it were available for use even in the
ordinary course of proceedings. To unchain the shackles of
preventive detention, it is important that safeguards enshrined in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
14 WP-2986-2026
our Constitution, particularly under the “golden triangle” formed

by Articles 14, 19 and 21, are diligently enforced.”
26 Thus, when the aforesaid pronouncement of law laid down by
the Apex Court in Ameena Begum versus State of Telangana &
Others (supra) is taken into consideration, then there is no iota of
doubt that there was no material to arrive at the subjective
satisfaction for preventive detention, which, as conceived by the
framers of our Constitution, is an extraordinary measure, but has
been rendered almost ordinary by its reckless invocation over the
years, as if it were available for use in the ordinary course of
proceedings.
27 As held by the Apex Court in Ameena Begum versus State of
Telangana & Others (supra) that to unchain the shackles of the
preventive detention, it is important that the safeguards enshrined
in our Constitution particularly under the “golden triangle” formed
by Articles 14, 19 and 21 are diligently enforced.
28 The application of mind to invoke the aforesaid extraordinary
measure appears to be missing in the present case. There is no
requisite satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. There
also appears to be non-application of mind. It also appears that the
haste with which the matter was processed in a single day took
away independent exercise of mind by the detaining
authority. When the factual matrix is not correct then application
of law cannot be expected to be correct.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:70034
15 WP-2986-2026
29 In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 6.1.2026

passed by the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Jabalpur
ordering detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the
National Security Act, 1980 is hereby set aside.
30 Accordingly, Writ Petition No.2985/2026 & Writ Petition
No.2986/2026 are allowed & disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
JUDGE
amit

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 12-09-
2026 12:43:19