Jailed Accused with FIRs For Murder, Sexual Offences Against Children Validly Detained Under NSA: Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash Detention Order

The Court took note of the detenue’s criminal history, observing that multiple FIRs had been lodged against him between 2018 and 2024, including for serious offences such as murder, criminal intimidation and sexual offences against children. An additional FIR dated 16-06-2025 was also registered under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in connection with an incident involving illegal excavation. The detaining authority had relied on these antecedents to conclude that the detenue posed a threat to public order.

At the outset, the Court held that a habeas corpus petition against an NSA detention order is maintainable. However, on merits, it found no infirmity warranting interference.

A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani observed, “Facts pertaining to the criminal history of the petitioner which have found place in the detention order is a significant factor while assessing whether a person will contribute positively to the society after being released on bail or will he prejudice the momentum of society by engaging in activities prejudicial to public order. Thus, the detention order cannot be set aside solely because the detaining authority took into consideration the previous criminal cases lodged against the detenue. Hence, there is no substance in the arguments of the petitioner regarding this ground”.

“…The Court is not required to delve into the subjective satisfaction of the detention authority and has to only consider whether relevant and material circumstances and grounds were considered by the detaining authority. The detention order dated 02.07.2025 clearly specified the grounds on the basis of which the petitioner was detained. The detaining authority had considered the illegal and unauthorized excavation activities of the detenue which resulted in the demolition of several houses in a crowded area, claiming lives of 3 persons including children. Several houses had been affected due to the unauthorized drive of the petitioner. Evidently, people were forced to abandon their own homes and those who decided to stay had to witness tractors and heavy machineries clamping down on their homes. The fear, apprehension and panic of the general public has also been considered by the detaining authority.”, the bench further observed.

Advocate Nadeem Murtaza appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Dr. Pooja Singh and S.N. Tilahari, AGA appeared for the respondents.

In the matter, the habeas corpus petition was filed challenging the detention order dated 02-07-2025, primarily on grounds that it was based on extraneous considerations, that there was delay in deciding the representation, and that the detenue was already in judicial custody at the time of passing of the order.

The detention stemmed from a fatal incident on 15-06-2025, where unauthorized digging and construction allegedly carried out by the detenue and others led to the collapse of multiple houses in a densely populated locality, resulting in the death of three persons, including children, and injuries to several others.

The incident triggered protests, road blockades and widespread panic among residents, particularly given the location’s proximity to a prominent temple area frequented by large numbers of people.

Significantly, the Bench also recorded that in several of the earlier cases, charge-sheets could not be effectively pursued as witnesses and complainants allegedly refrained from supporting the prosecution due to fear of the accused. This aspect, the Court held, was a relevant consideration in assessing whether the detenue, if released, would engage in activities prejudicial to public tranquillity and social harmony.

Therefore, rejecting the argument that the case merely involved a “law and order” issue, the Court held that the scale and impact of the incident disturbed the “even tempo of life” of the community, thereby falling within the ambit of “public order”.

It emphasised that preventive detention is not punitive but preventive in nature, and courts do not sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority so long as it is based on relevant material.

On the contention that the detenue was already in custody, the Court observed, “We find the answer to be in the affirmative. Reasons for this is clear from the plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 1980 which stipulates that the government can pass an order of preventive detention for the purpose of preventing an accused persons from committing acts prejudicial to public order. Thus, where the detaining authority is of the opinion that a person, who is in jail, is likely to be released and upon being released, there is a reasonable apprehension of such person indulging in acts prejudicial to public order, then the detaining authority may pass a detention order under Section 3 of the Act, 1980”.

The Court also rejected the plea of delay in deciding the representation, holding that the timeline demonstrated prompt action by the District Magistrate, State Government and Central Government. It reiterated that while expeditious consideration is a constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5), no rigid timeframe can be prescribed and delay must be assessed on the touchstone of reasonableness.

On finding that the detenue had been duly informed of the grounds of detention, afforded the opportunity to make a representation, and heard before the Advisory Board, the Court concluded that all procedural safeguards had been complied with.

Accordingly, the Court held that the detention order was based on relevant material, including the detenue’s criminal antecedents, the nature of the incident, and its impact on public order, and declined to quash the same.

Cause Title: Sunil Kumar Gupta Alias Sunil Chain Thru. His Son Akshit Gupta v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs , New Delhi And 3 Others [Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:7756-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Avinash Singh Vishen, Digvijay Singh, Nadeem Murtaza, Nikhil Mishra, Sudhanshu S. Tripathi, Advocates.

Respondents: Dr. Pooja Singh and S.N.Tilahari, AGA, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment