The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a preventive detention order issued under the National Security Act, citing complete non-application of mind by authorities who processed and approved the detention order within a single day. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 380]

The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh further observed that the detention order had wrongly marked 11 cases as pending against the detainee whereas he was acquitted in the said cases. 

"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"

The bench further highlighted,

"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 view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained in the eyes of law". 

The dispute arose after the District Magistrate of Jabalpur issued an order on January 6, 2026, directing detention of the petitioner under Section 3(2) of NSA for three months. The detention period was subsequently extended on April 1 and July 6, 2026. 

The detention stemmed from an incident on January 4, 2026, wherein the petitioner was allegedly involved in a country-made bomb explosion, which led to the registration of the FIR against him. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the District Magistrate has shown that out of 22 cases, 13 are presently pending trial, wherein it was recorded that one case was disposed of based on compromise, whereas in three others, he was punished with a fine. In one case, the petitioner was acquitted at the investigation stage and in the other two cases, he was honourably acquitted. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that this very information is incorrect. It was argued that the Detention Order was based on wrong premises and therefore it should be set aside. 

The Government Advocate for the State argued that the District Magistrate opined that the free movement of the petitioner is a risk to public order even if there was no single case registered against him. The State further argued that the Advisory Board was of the opinion that sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner is made out. It was further submitted that some clerical error will not favour the petitioner. 

The court noted that the Superintendent of Police gave a list of 22 criminal cases and 2 more cases for prohibitive action. Complaints were filed in 2024 and 2025 to show that the actions of the petitioner are against public order maintenance. On January 4, 2026, the petitioner had thrown a country-made bomb at the house of the complainant, causing a heavy explosion and creating fear in the minds of the general public. 

The court noted that, per the record, the petitioner's acts were habitual and repetitive and therefore a recommendation was made to take action against him. Thus, a report of the Additional Superintendent of Police was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police and then to the District Magistrate on the same day, that is, January 6, 2026. 

The bench noted, "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 passed the order of detention on January 6, 2026. The court noted that non-application of mind was apparent on the face of the record. The court noted that 11 cases were shown to be pending against the petitioner, whereas the petitioner shows that he was acquitted in the said cases. 

The court further noted that the records show manipulation of CCTV footage of January 4, 2026, for which the Superintendent of Police had shown show cause notice to the Sub Inspector on June 24, 2026. 

The court noted that incorrect facts were placed before the competent authority, and it can be seen that the detention order suffers from non-application of mind. The court noted that the non-application arises out of incorrect supply of data by the concerned Superintendent of Police, and it was mechanically forwarded by police authorities to the District Magistrate without verification of such data. 

The court emphasized that the Verification could have been obtained through the slightest effort by checking the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems. Thus, the court held that the detention order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 

Referring to the case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, the court noted that if there is no material to arrive at subjective satisfaction for preventive detention, then it cannot be recklessly invoked. Further, it was reiterated that preventive detention cannot be ordered at the 'drop of a hat' without consideration of the liberty and freedom guaranteed to people under the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order of January 6, 2026 and allowed the petitions. 

Case Title: Rajendra Thakur v State of MP, WP-2986-2026, Rajesh Thakur v State of MP, WP 2986 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 380

For petitioners: Advocate Nikhil Tiwari 

For State: Government Advocate Abhishek Singh 

Click here to read/download the Order