The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a detention order passed under the National Security Act against a man who opened fire in a residential area challenging the police and uploaded a video creating terror and fear amongst residents living in the vicinity. The High Court termed him a "threat to public order".

The Petitioner had filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the District Magistrate Gwalior under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), by which the petitioner was ordered to be detained for a period of three months in Central Jail Rewa. The Petitioner had also challenged the order whereby the period of detention had been extended for a period of three months.

The Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav held, “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.”

Advocate Rohit Tiwari represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate Sohit Mishra represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the petitioner had fired in public and uploaded the video of firing on social media. He was detained under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The District Magistrate Gwalior passed the detention order under Section 3 (3) of the NSA. Notice was served on petitioner and he was shifted from Gwalior to Rewa jail. District Magistrate Rewa reported the detention order to the State Government and the appropriate Government placed the detention order. The Advisory Board found sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner, and the Appropriate Government passed an order under Section 12 of the NSA.

Reasoning

The Bench, on a perusal of the facts of the case, found that all proceedings were undertaken by the respondents within a time frame. He was detained on January 28, 2024, under NSA, and thereafter, a report was sent under Section 3 (4) of NSA within four days. Moreover, the matter was placed within 18 days from the date of detention, whereas three weeks' time (around 21 days) is provided under Section 10 of the NSA. Therefore, the placement of the case was within limitations under Section 10 of the NSA.

The Bench explained that the Advisory Board had to decide within seven weeks (around 49 days) from the date of detention of the person concerned. The High Court noted that the Board passed the order on January 10, 2025, meaning thereby that the information was given on the 43rd day, therefore it was also within the limitation.

The Bench further held that the past conduct of the petitioner was already haunting him, and the uploading of a video where he opened fire from his country-made pistol in the vicinity of the public and sending a message of threat prompted the authority to act proactively. It was noticed that nine cases were registered against the petitioner. Calling him a threat to public order, the Bench held that he was rightly detained for NSA. “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 accordingly”, it added.

Thus, holding that the petitioner was rightly detained for his conduct and the higher authorities passed the orders within the time limit, the Bench found no error in the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Shivang Bhargav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Case No.: WP NO. 12933/2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Rohit Tiwari, Rajesh Kushwah

Respondent: Government Advocate Sohit Mishra

Click here to read/download Order


Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Anand PathakJustice Pushpendra Yadav

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.