The Supreme Court on September 29 quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz, an accused in the 2024 Sambhal violence case, under the National Security Act, 1980, and set aside the Allahabad High Court order that had upheld his detention, the live Law reported.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held that the Uttar Pradesh government could not have relied on a confession allegedly made by Afroz while in police custody to justify his preventive detention. The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government.
The case concerns violence that broke out in Sambhal following a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. Four people died in the violence. Afroz was arrested around 54 days after the incident, allegedly on the basis of a confession made while he was in police custody.
Afroz was subsequently granted bail by the Allahabad High Court. However, an NSA detention order was issued against him on October 13, 2025. The detention order was later upheld by the High Court, following which Afroz approached the Supreme Court.
During the proceedings, Afroz challenged the basis of his detention and argued that the alleged custodial confession was inadmissible in law. He also contended that the existence of multiple criminal cases, by itself, could not justify preventive detention.
His lawyers argued that a valid detention order required informed and bona fide satisfaction based on sufficient material. They relied on earlier Supreme Court judgments, including Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, to argue that a mere possibility of future involvement in crime, without sufficient supporting material, could not justify preventive detention.
The Supreme Court had previously questioned the relevance of the alleged custodial confession while reserving its order on September 8. The bench had specifically considered whether such a confession could form the basis of the “subjective satisfaction” required for preventive detention.
The Uttar Pradesh government defended the detention order, arguing that the available material showed a likelihood that Afroz could cause violence or affect public order. The state also maintained that questions concerning the relevance or admissibility of the confession could be considered in appropriate legal proceedings.
Afroz had also alleged before the Supreme Court that police themselves opened fire during the Sambhal violence and that this aspect had not been properly investigated. He sought permission to file a protest petition regarding the alleged police firing.
