The petitioner, Mulla Afroz, is an accused in the Sambhal violence that followed a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, in which four persons died. He was arrested around 54 days after the incident, allegedly on the basis of a confession made while in police custody.

Although he was subsequently granted bail by the Allahabad High Court, a detention order was passed against him on October 13, 2025, under the NSA. The detention order was subsequently upheld by the High Court, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the police had themselves opened fire during the violence and that this aspect had not been fairly investigated. He sought liberty to file a protest petition in this regard.

He further argued that his arrest was based on a confession made in police custody, which is inadmissible in law. On the preventive detention issue, he submitted that the mere existence of multiple criminal cases cannot, by itself, justify detention and that a bona fide and informed subjective satisfaction, based on sufficient material, is necessary. Reliance was placed on Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana to contend that a mere possibility of the detenue becoming involved in crime again, without cogent material supporting such an apprehension, cannot furnish a valid basis for preventive detention.

Defending the detention order, the State relied on the “likelihood” of the petitioner causing violence or affecting public order. It was contended that if the material available demonstrates such likelihood, it would be sufficient to justify preventive detention. On the custodial confession, the respondent argued that whether the confession was relevant or irrelevant was a matter to be considered in the appropriate legal proceedings.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Article 20(3), Article 22(5) — Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 23 — Preventive detention based on extra-judicial confession made to police — Inadmissibility and invalidity - A confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, by itself and in the absence of independent material lending support thereto, constitute the basis for forming the subjective satisfaction necessary to sustain an order of preventive detention - Under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (analogous to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), confessions made before police officers are inherently suspect and excluded from evidence - If such a confession is too tainted to be received in evidence for proving guilt, it cannot legitimately constitute a valid ground for preventive detention, particularly when procured under alleged threat or torture in violation of Article 20(3) - Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the inclusion of an irrelevant or legally impermissible ground strikes at the root of the detenu's right to make an effective representation and vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. [Relied on Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569; Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur, (2010) 9 SCC 618; Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424; Distinguished from Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N., (2006) 5 SCC 676; E. Subbulakshmi v. State of T.N., (2017) 1 SCC 757; Paras 15, 30–36, 38–39]

National Security Act, 1980 — Section 3(2), Section 8 — Scope of Judicial Review — Non-disclosure and non-supply of foundational material - Where the grounds of detention asserted that the detenu was identified as the mastermind via CCTV footages and call records with a "Boss," but neither the CCTV recordings nor the call records/mobile data formed part of the 22 documents relied upon or supplied to the detenu or produced before the Court, reliance on such undisclosed material is fatal to the detention order - A detention order cannot be founded on material that was never furnished to the detenu. [Relied on Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur, (2010) 9 SCC 618; Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587; State of Rajasthan v. Talib Khan, (1996) 11 SCC 393; Paras 44–48]

National Security Act, 1980 — Section 3(2) — Mere filing of charge-sheet and pendency of criminal cases — Invocation of preventive detention to defeat bail — Subversion of criminal process - The mere filing of a charge-sheet amounts only to an opinion of the investigating agency and does not constitute conclusive proof of guilt or disturbance of public order - While the pendency of a criminal prosecution is not an absolute bar to preventive detention (Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal affirmed), invoking preventive detention on the very same allegations when an accused has obtained or is likely to obtain bail demonstrates that the power was used punitively rather than preventively, seeking to subvert judicial orders of bail - The mere existence of multiple cases is not per se a ground for detention absent cogent, proximate material showing an imperative need to prevent future prejudicial activity - Impugned detention order and confirmation set aside with costs of Rs. 10 Lakh imposed on the State. [Relied on Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244; Paras 49–59, 63–69]

Case: Mulla Afroz v. Union of India & Ors. | SLP(Crl) No. 012534 / 2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 999