The Supreme Court on September 29, 2026, set aside the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz under the National Security Act, 1980, arising from the November 2024 Sambhal violence. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu also quashed the Allahabad High Court judgment that had upheld the detention order.
The Court found that the material relied upon by the detaining authority did not provide a legally sustainable basis for keeping Afroz under preventive detention. It also directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹10 lakh as costs to him.
Background
The proceedings arose from violence during the survey of a mosque in Sambhal on November 24, 2024, in which four persons died. Although Afroz was not named in the FIR registered on the day of the incident, he was arrested on January 17, 2025, in connection with other cases. During his custody, an alleged confessional statement was recorded, following which a .32 bore pistol was stated to have been recovered.
The High Court granted him bail in one case on September 9, 2025. The District Magistrate, Sambhal, nevertheless passed a preventive detention order against him on October 13, 2025, under Section 3(2) of the NSA. The State Government later confirmed the detention for 12 months. By June 2026, Afroz had secured bail in all the criminal cases in which he had been implicated.
The Supreme Court closely examined the alleged confession recorded while Afroz was in police custody. The Court noted that Afroz had consistently alleged that the statement was obtained through threats and torture, and the respondents had not effectively refuted that assertion.
The Bench held that a confession made before a police officer could not, without independent supporting material, provide the foundation for the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention. The Court tested the issue against Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects a person against compelled self-incrimination, and Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
The Court observed:
“Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that a confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, by itself, and in the absence of any independent material lending support thereto, constitute a basis for forming the subjective satisfaction necessary to sustain an order of preventive detention.”
The Court also clarified that other material, if independently sufficient, could still be examined. In the present case, however, the remaining material also failed to provide a valid foundation for detention.
The Court found that the detention grounds referred to CCTV footage and video recordings allegedly used to identify persons involved in the incident. However, those recordings were not among the 22 documents relied upon by the detaining authority and had not been supplied to Afroz or produced before the courts.
The Bench held that reliance on material that was neither supplied nor disclosed could not sustain the detention order. It also questioned the unexplained reference to alleged mobile communications with a person described as Afroz’s “Boss”, observing that neither the phone nor the alleged messages formed part of the relied-upon documents.
The Court further held that merely filing a chargesheet did not establish guilt or conclusively prove involvement in the alleged offences.
The Bench also considered the fact that Afroz had already obtained bail. It found that the detention order appeared to proceed on the possibility that he would be released and might again disturb public order.
The Court held that, in the circumstances of the case, the preventive detention had effectively been used to keep Afroz in custody despite the judicial orders granting bail. It stressed that preventive detention and ordinary criminal proceedings serve different purposes and that detention cannot be sustained merely by relying on the same incident and substantially overlapping material.
The Supreme Court held that the requisite connection between the material relied upon and the detaining authority’s satisfaction was absent. It therefore set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment, the detention order dated October 13, 2025, and the confirmation order dated November 28, 2025.
The Court directed that Afroz be released forthwith unless his custody was required in connection with another case.
It also imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the State of Uttar Pradesh, payable to Afroz within one month.
