Is the mere filing of a chargesheet conclusive proof of involvement in the alleged offences?

National Security Act, 1980 — s.3(2) — Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — s.23 — Constitution of India — Arts.20(3), 22(5) — Preventive detention — Confessional statement before police officer — Subjective satisfaction — National Security Act, 1980 — s.3(2) — Preventive detention — Confessional statement before police officer — Held: A confessional statement made before a police officer cannot, by itself and without independent material lending support, form the basis of the subjective satisfaction needed to sustain an order of preventive detention. The Full Bench decision in Suman is overruled to that extent. (¶28, 36, 38) Constitution of India — Art.22(5) — Preventive detention — Irrelevant ground — Effective representation — Held further: An irrelevant ground cannot legitimately enter into the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, since a detenu cannot make an effective representation against allegations incapable of sustaining the detention. Other material relied upon must then be examined independently. (¶35, 39) National Security Act, 1980 — Preventive detention — Bail — Punitive detention — Scrutiny — Held further: A detention order that seeks to frustrate the judicial order granting bail is not preventive but punitive; where the person is already in custody or on bail, scrutiny of the detention order must be more exacting. (¶52, 53, 65) National Security Act, 1980 — Preventive detention — Chargesheet — Multiple cases — On facts, held: The mere filing of a chargesheet and the multiple pending cases did not sustain the detention order. Detention and confirmation orders set aside, release directed and costs of Rs.10 lakh imposed on the State. Appeal allowed. (¶50, 59, 67, 69)