Judgment Summary: Ajeet Singh Anand Urf Mange Sardar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 11750 of 2024
In a recent case concerning the detention of an individual based on a WhatsApp message, Justice Vishal Dhagat of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has provided the State with a three-week period to present evidence linking the message to the petitioner and the alleged basis for his detention, which relates to threats against the Prime Minister’s and Vice President’s cavalcade.
The petitioner was detained at his residence on June 20, 2023, around 7:00 AM and was subsequently held at the local police station without justification for over 24 hours. Upon his release the following day, he filed a written grievance with the police station regarding the unlawful detention, yet no action was taken. He then escalated the matter by submitting a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, but still, no measures were initiated.
The petitioner claims that his detention has led to a significant decline in his public reputation and has caused him psychological distress. As a result, he has petitioned the Court for compensation amounting to ₹5,00,000 and has called for punitive actions against the authorities for their conduct in detaining him without cause.
The attorney representing the police (Respondent No. 3) and the Government Advocate for the State (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) requested a three-week extension to furnish proof that the WhatsApp message indicated the petitioner intended to disrupt or obstruct the official convoy of the Prime Minister and Vice President, which warranted his summoning to the police station.
It was argued that the petitioner’s presence at the police station coincided with the visit of the Prime Minister and Vice President, and that he has a history of involvement in 25 criminal cases, thus justifying the actions taken by the police under the law.
The Court acknowledged their request, granting the respondents three weeks to establish a connection between the WhatsApp message and the allegations against the petitioner.