Supreme Court declares preventive detention of Mulla Afroz illegal, fines Uttar Pradesh government Rs 10 lakh

Noting that the action was taken against him almost two months after the incident, despite the probe agency claiming to have video footage, the court said, 'It defies reason as to why it took the agency to arrest the detenu 54 days after registration of the first FIR'.

NEW DELHI: Uttar Pradesh govt failed to give a satisfactory answer for keeping an accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence case under preventive detention for a year under the National Security Act, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday and slapped a Rs 10 lakh fine on the state, to be paid to the detenu. It also reminded the state to "remain faithful" to the preventive detention jurisprudence and not use it as a punitive measure. Declaring the preventive detention, which was resorted to by the state to keep accused Mulla Afroz in custody after he was granted bail, as illegal, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said there were multiple flaws in the decision, as evidence to justify it was insufficient. Mulla's confession before police could not have been the sole ground to invoke preventive detention, as in this case, it said.

Confessional statement alone can’t be basis for detention: SC

The reliance placed upon the very same occurrence and substantially the same material for sustaining both criminal and preventive detention proceedings lends considerable force to the contention that the detention order has assumed a character more punitive than preventive. We are, therefore, constrained to observe that the state must remain faithful to the rationale underlying preventive detention jurisprudence," the bench said. The detention order was passed on Oct 13 last year. Granting relief to Mulla, SC said, "The appellant has already suffered considerable loss of liberty, even while being granted bail in all cases related to the incident, in which he featured as an accused. In such circumstances, the process was made a punishment." Noting that the action was taken against him almost two months after the incident, despite the probe agency claiming to have video footage, the court said, “It defies reason as to why it took the agency 54 days to arrest the detenu after registration of the first FIR”. “However, the CCTV footage and video recordings, which appear to constitute the sheet-anchor of the allegation, do not find place among the 22 documents relied upon by the detaining authority. Neither have such recordings been furnished to the appellant nor have they been produced before HC or even before us,” it said. The court said an accused person enjoys the fundamental right against self-incrimination and cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Join conversation

Share your thoughts in the comments

Be respectful · TOI community guidelines

“We are of the opinion that a confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, by itself, and in absence of any independent material lending support thereto, constitute a basis for forming the subjective satisfaction necessary to sustain an order of preventive detention,” it said. SC added that to permit this would allow a detention order to rest upon a foundation which the law itself excludes from evidentiary consideration.

End of Article