The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, an accused in the November 2024 Sambhal violence case, holding that the Uttar Pradesh government had illegally kept him under the National Security Act (NSA) for nearly a year after he had secured bail in the criminal cases against him.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the state government, payable to Afroz, and reminded the state to "remain faithful" to the jurisprudence of preventive detention rather than using it as a punitive measure.
The detention order had been passed on October 13 last year. The court noted that the state failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the order and that there were multiple flaws in the decision, with insufficient evidence to justify it.
Questioning the timeline, the court observed that the investigating agency took 54 days after the registration of the first FIR to arrest Afroz, despite claiming to possess video footage. "It defies reason as to why it took the agency 54 days to arrest the detenu after registration of the first FIR," the bench said.
Crucially, the court pointed out that the CCTV footage and video recordings described as the "sheet-anchor of the allegation" did not figure among the 22 documents relied upon by the detaining authority — and were neither furnished to Afroz nor produced before the high court or the Supreme Court.
The bench also ruled that a confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, by itself and without independent corroboration, form the basis of the subjective satisfaction needed to sustain preventive detention. It reiterated that an accused enjoys the fundamental right against self-incrimination and cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
"Since the appellant has already suffered considerable loss of liberty, even while being granted bail in all cases related to the incident... the process was made a punishment," the court said, adding that the same material being used to sustain both criminal and preventive proceedings made the detention "more punitive than preventive."
Sources: The Times of India, The Economic Times
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the state government, payable to Afroz, and reminded the state to "remain faithful" to the jurisprudence of preventive detention rather than using it as a punitive measure.
The detention order had been passed on October 13 last year. The court noted that the state failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the order and that there were multiple flaws in the decision, with insufficient evidence to justify it.
Questioning the timeline, the court observed that the investigating agency took 54 days after the registration of the first FIR to arrest Afroz, despite claiming to possess video footage. "It defies reason as to why it took the agency 54 days to arrest the detenu after registration of the first FIR," the bench said.
Crucially, the court pointed out that the CCTV footage and video recordings described as the "sheet-anchor of the allegation" did not figure among the 22 documents relied upon by the detaining authority — and were neither furnished to Afroz nor produced before the high court or the Supreme Court.
The bench also ruled that a confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, by itself and without independent corroboration, form the basis of the subjective satisfaction needed to sustain preventive detention. It reiterated that an accused enjoys the fundamental right against self-incrimination and cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
"Since the appellant has already suffered considerable loss of liberty, even while being granted bail in all cases related to the incident... the process was made a punishment," the court said, adding that the same material being used to sustain both criminal and preventive proceedings made the detention "more punitive than preventive."
Sources: The Times of India, The Economic Times
