Jharkhand High Court
Niraj Dubey @ Niraj Kumar Dubey vs State Of Jharkhand on 28 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
----
W.P. (Cr.) (DB) No. 347 of 2025
Niraj Dubey @ Niraj Kumar Dubey, aged about 35 years, S/o
Vijay Kumar Dubey, R/o Bagbera Colony Road No. 1, Qtr No.
15/2/4, P.O. Tara Nagar, P.S. – Bagbera, Jamshedpur, Dist.
East Singhbhum. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2.Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Project Building,
H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3.Under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Project Building,
H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4.The District Magistrate -cum- Deputy Commissioner,
Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur,
District Singhbhum East
5.Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka,
District Dumka
… Respondents
——-
CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, Advcoate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AC to AAG V
——–
CAV on 21/08/2025 Pronounced on 28/08/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
Prayer:
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs:
-1-
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
“a.Quashing the order of preventive detention dated
04.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 4 u/s. 12 (2) of
the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act in terms of which
the petitioner has been directed to be detained;
b. For quashing of order dated 13.09.2024 passed under
the signature of respondent no. 3 u/s. 12 (3) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act,2002 (hereinafter to be
referred to as the Act,2002) in terms of which the order
dated 04.09.2024 has been approved;
C. For quashing of order dated 21.10.2024 passed under
the signature of the respondents no. 3 u/s. 21 (1) & 22 of
the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act in terms of which
the order dated 04.09.2024 has been confirmed;
d. For quashing the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by
under Secretary of State of Jharkhand extending the
period of preventive detention up to 03.03.2025.
e. For quashing the order dated 20.02.2025 extending
the period of preventive detention up to 03.06.2025;
e-I.For quashing the order dated 04.06.2025 extending
the period of preventive detention up to 03.09.2025;
f. Upon quashing the aforesaid orders be further pleased
to direct the respondents to forthwith release him as the
detention of the petitioner is illegal as it infringes the
fundamental and statutory right of the petitioner;
-2-
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
2. During pendency of the writ petition, again the period of
detention has been extended vide order dated 04.06.2025 up-
to the period of 03.09.2025, which the petitioner has
challenged by way of filing Interlocutory Application being I.A.
No. 7087 of 2025, which was allowed vide order dated 24 th
June, 2025. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was directed to
file amended writ petition.
Factual Aspect:
3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in
the writ petition reads as under:
4. The petitioner was served with a copy of the order dated
04.09.2024 passed by the respondent No. 4 in terms of which
the respondent No. 4 had passed detention order under
Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002
for a period of 12 days which was extendable up to 3 months
subject to confirmation from the date of order. It is the case
of the petitioner he was not provided the copy of the order
dated 04.09.2024 rather the copy was provided to the
petitioner on 14.09.2024 along with the order passed u/S. 12
(3) of the Act. Such infraction also makes the order dated
04.09.2024 inoperative and void ab initio.
5. It is stated that the said order was passed upon the
recommendation made by the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur on the ground that the
-3-
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
petitioner is involved in various crimes. The basis upon which
recommendation was made was cited as involvement of the
petitioner in 03 Criminal cases and 07 such cases based
upon SANHA. The petitioner has not been provided copies of
the material upon which such recommendation was made.
6. Further case of the petitioner is that the respondents
communicated a order dated 13.09.2024 in terms of which it
was informed to the petitioner that the State Government has
approved the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the
respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a
representation to the State Government through the
respondent no. 5, however, no receiving/acknowledgement of
the same was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was
told by the respondent no. 5 that the petitioner will get
information about the same in due course.
7. Again, the respondents vide order dated 21.10.2024
informed the petitioner that in the opinion of Advisory Board,
there is sufficient ground for detention of the petitioner and
as such the State Government in exercise of its powers under
Section 21 (1) and 22 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act
has been pleased to confirm the same.
8. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondents
have taken into consideration 07 SANHA entries which have
no legal or evidentiary value and as such the same cannot be
-4-
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
basis for passing the order of preventive detention.
9. The petitioner has stated that it would be pertinent to
state herein that on the basis of 03 criminal cases the order
dated 04.09.2024 has been passed, out of which in all the
three cases, he has been granted bail by the Court.
10. Further it has been stated that the petitioner was in
custody in the Bagbera P.S. Case No. 65/2024 and since the
co-accused was granted bail there was likelihood of the
petitioner being granted bail as his bail application was
pending before this Hon’ble Court as such it has been alleged
that in order to detain the petitioner illegally the impugned
order has been passed.
11. Further, the respondents have vide order dated
29.11.2024 extended the period of preventive detention up to
03.03.2025. Thereafter, again detention has been extended
vide order dated 20.02.2025 up to 03.06.2025.
12. Being aggrieved with the order of detention, the
petitioner has approached this court. But during pendency of
the writ petition, again the period of detention has been
extended vide order dated 04.06.2025 up-to the period of
03.09.2025, which the petitioner has challenged by way of
filing Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 7087 of 2025,
which was allowed vide order dated 24th June, 2025.
Accordingly, the writ petitioner was directed to file amended
-5-
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
writ petition.
Submission on behalf of writ petitioner:
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
from bare perusal of the orders of extension it would be
evident that the respondents did not apply their mind to the
subsequent development of grant of bail to the petitioner. At
the same time the respondents extended the order of
preventive detention on inconsistent and unsustainable
grounds. Therefore, the order of preventive detention passed
against the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal, hence liable to
be set aside.
14. Submission has been made that the order of detention
passed against the petitioner is in breach of the fundamental
rights of the petitioner guaranteed to him under the
Constitution of India.
15. Further submission has been made that the
representation preferred by the petitioner was denied to be
considered by the respondent no. 5 and as such the order of
preventive detention passed against the petitioner is illegal.
The respondents have failed to disclose the grounds upon
which they have formed an opinion that the petitioner ought
to be detained. The respondents have violated the right
guaranteed to the petitioner detenu under Article 22 (5) of the
Constitution of India by violating the right of not properly
-6-
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
considering representation of the petitioner.
16. Submission has been made that copy of order of
detention dated 04.09.2024 was not communicated to the
petitioner and it was provided to the petitioner on 14.09.2024
along with the order passed under section 12(3) of the Act
and further the representation of the petitioner was not
decided.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid
grounds has submitted that the order of preventive detention
is liable to be set aside as the respondent while passing the
order of preventive detention has failed to consider that the
petitioner was likely to be released on bail and his release
would not be prejudicial in the public interest.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case
has relied upon the judgments delivered by the Apex Court in
case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi devi versus State of Manipur
and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618 ; State of
Manipur and others versus Buyamayum Abdul Hanan
alias Anand and others reported in (2022) 19 SCC 509
and Joyi Kitty Joseph versus Union of India and others,
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 298.
Submission on behalf of respondents:
19. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents-State has submitted that the impugned order
-7-
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
dated 04.09.2024, as contained in Memo No.312(A), has been
passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner,
East Singhbhum after perusal of the record and observing the
provisions of law and after applying the judicious mind.
20. The order dated 13.09.2024 has been passed by the
respondent no.3 Under Secretary, Department of Home
Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, and has rightly approved
the detention order. Thereafter, order dated 21.10.2024 was
communicated to the petitioner wherein petitioner was
informed that in the opinion of the Advisory Board, there is
sufficient ground for detention of the petitioner.
21. Further, submission has been made that the petitioner
has rightly been detained u/s 12 of the Jharkhand Control
Act, 2002 since the District Magistrate has been vested with
the power of detention under the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act, 2002, as such detention order dated 04.09.2024
issued by the State Government is legal and sustainable in
the eye of law. Thereafter, the period of detention has been
extended and has been confirmed by the authorities
concerned, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be
released from the detention.
22. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner has been duly provided with the information
regarding his representation and detention order by the
-8-
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
authorities. However, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in K.M.
Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader versus Union of
India & Ors. and State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in
(1991) 1 SCC 476 has clearly held that the authority has no
constitutional duty to consider the representation made by
the detenue before the order of confirmation of the detention
order. There is no constitutional mandate under clause (5)
Article 22, much less any statutory requirement to consider
the representation before confirming the order of detention.
23. In the case in hand preventive detention order has not
been passed mechanically rather after perusing the records
revealing the criminal activities and satisfying himself with
this anticipation that the petitioner’s detention is essential
since he is detrimental to the public order and tranquility in
the society. Thus, the grounds of the detention of the
petitioner have been found to be decisive for the maintenance
of the public order.
24. So far ground made by the petitioner that his
fundamental legal rights under constitution of India has been
violated, in this regard submission has been made that
considering all the factual and legal aspects and conduct of
past criminal activities of detenue, the detention order was
passed which has been confirmed by the Respondent No. 2
and 3.
-9-
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
25. Further submission has been made that 7 sanhas
entries have been made in pursuance of the information
received to the concerned police stations regarding the future
criminal activities of the petitioner disturbing the public order
and tranquility in the society, these sanha entries are in
continuation of the past criminal conducts of the petitioner
and this is also the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authorities passed by the Respondent 4.
26. So far acquittal or discharge or bail of the detenue is
concerned, it is submitted that it is the subjective satisfaction
of the Detaining Authority that in spite of his continuous
activities causing threat to maintenance of public order, the
detenue was getting bail one after another and indulging in
the same activities. In such circumstances, based on the
relevant materials and satisfying itself, namely that it would
not be possible to control his habituality in continuing the
criminal activities by resorting the normal procedures, the
Detaining Authority passed an order detaining the petitioner
under the Act.
27. It is further submitted that an order of preventive
detention may be made with or without prosecution and in
anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. It is taken by
way of protection to prevent mischief to the community. The
case lodged against the petitioner relates to commission of
– 10 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
murder, attempt to commit murder and extortion. Such
nature of offences comes under the chapter VI of BNS, 2023
read with XVI of IPC, which provides in section 2 and section
2(d)(i) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act,2002 that
“anti-social elements” means person who either by himself or
as a member or leader of a gang habitually commits or
attempts to commits or abets the commission of offences
punishable under chapter XVI or XVII of IPC read with
chapter VI or XVII of BNS 2023. The petitioner is an anti-
social element. The petitioner has been found to be a habitual
offender also since 2 cases have been lodged continuously in
the year 2023 and 2024.
28. The detaining authority had anticipated on his
subjective satisfaction regarding disturbing public order and
tranquility, hence the preventive detention order was
detained passed by the respondent against the petitioner.
29. It needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in catena of decisions has observed that where individual
liberty comes into conflict with the interest of society at large
and public order, then the liberty of the individual must give
way to the larger interest of the society. The right to liberty of
life is no doubt guaranteed to the petitioner but at the same
time Article 22(3)(b) of the constitution permits preventive
detention. In the instant case the petitioner has committed
– 11 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
several criminal acts and he has created panic and havoc in
the society. There is strong anticipation that the petitioner
will be disturbing the public order in future. So being
satisfied subjectively and objectively the detaining authority
has passed the detention order, which requires no
interference by this Court.
30. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on
the judgment delivered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of
D.M Nagaraja Versus Government of Karnataka and
others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 215 and Dropti Devi and
Another versus Union of India and others reported in
(2012) 7 SCC 499.
Analysis:
31. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the order of detention as also the pleadings made on
behalf of the petitioner and the State as available in the writ
petitions and the counter affidavits.
32. The issues which require consideration herein are –
(i) Whether representation of the petitioner was decided by
the authority or not?
(ii) Whether detention order dated 04.09.2024(Annexure-1)
was not communicated to the petitioner and hence,
violates section 17 of the Jharkhand Control of Crime
Act,2002?
– 12 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
(iii) Whether the criminal activities of petitioner comes
under the purview of definition of „‟Anti-social
Elements‟‟ as defined under section 2(d) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002?
33. All the issues since are interlinked, as such, the issues
are being taken up together for its consideration. But,
before considering the said issues, the statutory provision
as contained under the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes,2002 needs to be referred. The relevant provisions
which require consideration are Sections 2(d), 12, and 17
of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes,2002, which are
necessary to be referred herein.
34. “Anti-social Element” has been defined in section 2(d) of
the Act,2002, which reads hereunder as: –
2(d) “Anti-social element” means a person who-
(i) either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang
habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission
of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the
Indian Penal Code;or
(ii) habitually commits or abets the commission of offences under
the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956;
or
(iii) who by words or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote,
on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any
other grounds whatsoever, feelings of enmity or hatred between
different religions, racial or language groups or castes or
communities; or
(iv) has been found habitually passing indecent remarks to, or
teasing women or girls; or
– 13 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
(v)who has been convicted of an offence under sections 25,26, 27,
28 or 29 of the Arms Act of 1959.
35. Further, Section 12 of the Act,2002 empowers the State
Government to detain a person, which reads as under-
12. Power to make order detaining certain persons. – The
State Government may- (1) if satisfied with respect to any person
that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason
to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be
prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person,
make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained.
(2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to
prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a
District Magistrate, the State Government is satisfied that it is
necessary so to do, it may by an order in writing direct, that
during such period as may be specified in the order, such District
Magistrate may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1)
exercise the powers conferred upon by the said sub-section:
Provided that the period specified in an order made by the
State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first
instance exceed three months, but the State Government may, if
satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such
order to extend such period from time to time by any period not
exceeding three months at any one time.
(3) When any order is made by District Magistrate, he shall
forthwith report, the fact to the State Government together with
the grounds on which the order has been made and such other
particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and
no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after
the making thereof unless, in the meantime, it has been approved
by the State Government:
Provided that where under Section 17 the grounds of
detention are communicated by the officer making the order after
five days but not later than ten days from the date of detention,
this sub-section shall apply subject to the modification that, for
– 14 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
the words “twelve days”, the words “fifteen days” shall be
substituted.
36. Section 17 of the Act,2002 stipulates that ground of
orders of detention to be disclosed to the person affected
by the order. Section 17 of the Act, 2002 reads as under-
17. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to person
affected by the order. – (1) When a person is detained in
pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order
shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days
and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded
in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention,
communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been
made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a
representation against the order to the State Government.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose
facts which it considers to be against the public interest to
disclose.
37. In the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions,
the factual aspect of the present case is to be considered
in order to consider the issue as formulated herein above.
38. But, before proceeding further it would be relevant to
consider the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court
regarding preventive detention under Article 22(3)(b) of the
Constitution of India. Hon‟ble Apex Court has also taken
into consideration the issue of detention and agreeing
with the object of the preventive detention enactments,
the law has been laid down that since the power to detain
a person is snatching away the liberty as enshrined as a
fundamental right under the Constitution and, as such,
– 15 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
the said power is to be exercised with all care and
circumspection so that there may not be any vice of
malice or the arbitrary exercise on the part of the State to
snatch away the personal liberty of an individual.
39. Here, it would be relevant to mention the judgment
delivered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Mortuza
Hussain Choudhary Vs. State of Nagaland and Others
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 502, wherein Apex
court at paragraph-2 has said that Preventive detention is
a draconian measure whereby a person who has not been
tried and convicted under a penal law can be detained and
confined for a determinate period of time so as to curtail
that person’s anticipated criminal activities and this
extreme mechanism is, however, sanctioned by
Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India.
40. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, the
petitioner has challenged the order of preventive detention
dated 04.09.2024(Annexure-1) passed under section 12(2)
of the Jharkhand Control of Crime Act,2002 by the
respondent no.4 District Magistrate-cum-Deputy
Commisioner, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur and order
dated 13.09.2024 passed under section 12(3) of the
Act,2002 wherein order dated 04.09.2024 was approved
– 16 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
and also the subsequent orders extending the period of
detention.
41. Now, coming to the first issue that whether
representation of the petitioner was decided by the
authority. Submission has been made by the petitioner
counsel that representation of the petitioner was not
decided. In this regard, we find that at paragraph-9 of the
writ petition, petitioner has stated that he had submitted
representation to the State Government through
respondent no. 5 on 21.10.2024, however, no
receiving/acknowledgement of the same was provided to
the petitioner.
42. Further it needs to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in the case of K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul
Khader versus Union of India & Ors. and State of
Karnataka & Ors. (supra) has categorically held that the
authority has no constitutional duty to consider the
representation made by the detenue before the order of
confirmation of the detention order. There is no
constitutional mandate under clause (5) Article 22, much
less any statutory requirement to consider the
representation before confirming the order of detention.
43. Hence, it is the own admission of the petitioner that
receiving/acknowledgement of the representation was not
– 17 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
provided to the petitioner meaning thereby that petitioner
himself has failed to prove that he had submitted
representation to the State Government through
respondent no. 5 on 21.10.2024. If respondent no. 5
Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka had not given the
receiving/acknowledgement of the representation filed by
the petitioner, then petitioner could have addressed his
grievance to the higher Government officials. But, the
petitioner has not done so and in the writ petition he has
levelled bald allegation of not providing the
receiving/acknowledgement of his representation.
44. Hence, when the factual basis of filing the
representation has not been proved by the petitioner,
therefore, the question of deciding the representation does
not arise.
45. Now, reverting to the second issue i.e. whether detention
order dated 04.09.2024(Annexure-1) was not
communicated to the petitioner and hence, violates
section 17 of the Jharkhand Control of Crime Act,2002.
Section 17 of the Act stipulates that grounds of order of
detention to be disclosed to person affected by the order
wherein it is provided that authority making the detention
order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later
than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for
– 18 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days
from the date of detention, communicate to detune the
grounds on which the order has been made.
46. Hence, as per section 17 of the Act, aforesaid detention
order has to be communicated to the detune from the date
of detention which is ordinarily not later than five days
and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be
recorded in writing, not later than ten days.
47. But, in the case in hand on perusal of detention order
04.09.2024(Annexure-1), we find that respondent no.4
District Magistrate, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, who
had issued the detention order, has in the detention order
itself ordered that copy of the aforesaid detention order be
forwarded to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ghaghidih,
to be made available to the petitioner, for compliance of
section 17 of the Act.
48. Hence, on the date of issue of detention order dated
04.09.2024, petitioner was locked in Central Jail,
Ghaghidih, which is apparent from the detention order
itself. Under section 17 of the Act, detention order has to
be communicated to the detune from the „date of
detention‟ whereas in the present case, before the
issuance of detention order dated 04.09.2024, petitioner
was locked in Central Jail, Ghaghidih.
– 19 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
49. Hence, it cannot be said that section 17 of the Act was
violated because on the date of passing of the detention
order dated 04.09.2024, petitioner was already locked in
jail whereas section 17 requires that detention order has
to be communicated to the detune from the date of
detention. Hence, this court is of the view that there is no
violation of section 17 of the Act,2002 as alleged.
50. Now, the third issue whether the criminal activities of
petitioner come under the purview of definition of „‟Anti-
social Elements‟‟ as defined under section 2(d) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. In this regard we
find that power to make orders detaining certain persons
are provided in section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act, 2002. Section 12(1) provides that if State
Government is satisfied with respect to any person that
with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is
reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements
cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate
arrest of such person, make an order directing that such
anti-social element be detained.
51. Hence, section 12(1) empowers the State Government to
detain anti-social element if there is reason to fear that
the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented
– 20 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person.
The anti-social element has been defined in Section 2(d) of
the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 and section
2(d)(i) of the Act provides that “Anti-social element” means
a person who either by himself or as a member of or
leader of gang habitually commits, or attempts to commit
or abets the commission of offences punishable under
Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code.
52. On going through the detention order dated
04.09.2024(Annexure-1), we find that detention order
dated 04.09.2024 was passed by the respondent no.4
District Magistrate, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur on the
recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police,
Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur. Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, had recommended
proposal wherein involvement of the petitioner in three
criminal cases and seven cases based on sanha is
mentioned.
53. We find that various cases have been registered against
the petitioner in the district of East Singhbhum in
Bagbera P.S., GRP Tata Nagar P.S. and Sakchi police
station. Bagbera P.S. Case No. 65/2024 dated
02.05.2024 was registered under section 307/120B/34 of
IPC and 27 Arms Act; GRP Tata Nagar P.S. case No.
– 21 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
36/20203 dated 15.05.2023 was registered under section
341/323/385/387/34 of IPC and Sakchi P.S. case No.
235 of 2017 dated 10.12.1017 was registered under
sections 302/34 and 27 Arms Act. Apart from these three
FIRs, in as many as seven cases based upon sanha, there
is involvement of the petitioner.
54. On perusal of the FIRs registered against the petitioner,
we find that among the three FIRs, the oldest FIR is of the
year 2017 and was registered under section 302 of IPC
and section 27 of Arms Act. Thereafter, next FIR is of the
year 2023 registered under section 325/385/387 of IPC
and other sections of IPC. The latest FIR is of the year
2024 which was registered under sections 307/120B/34
of IPC and section 27 of Arms Act.
55. The question of subjective satisfaction has also been
taken as the ground of non-consideration of order of bail
passed by the court of law. The ground of bail cannot be
said to effect the decision taken by the competent
authority of detention rather the accusation so made in
the First Information Report is to be seen for the purpose
to have the subjective satisfaction of the nature of
accusation made in the said FIR. Since the detention
order is to be passed by the competent authority
anticipating the criminality of the concerned and it would
– 22 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
be evident from the accusation made in the paragraph-13
of the writ petition wherein three pending criminal cases
against the petitioner has been mentioned, as has already
been discussed in the preceding paragraph, wherein he is
on bail, but, whatever allegation has been made against
the writ petitioner that is of serious in nature.
56. The consideration of coming from judicial custody by
virtue of order passed by the court to release on bail has
been taken into consideration by the Hon‟ble Apex Court
in D.M. Nagaraja (supra) case, wherein detenue had
challenged his detention order. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in
this case had noted in paragraph-17 that the even after
release on bail detenue again started indulging in the
same type of offences, particularly, threatening the public
life, damaging public property, etc and hence, detenue
appeal was dismissed. Further in paragraph-20 of this
judgment Hon‟ble Apex Court had noted the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the
detention order against the detenue. Paragraph-17 and 20
of D.M. Nagaraja(supra) case is quoted herein below for
the ready reference-
“17. All the abovementioned details which have been
correctly stated in the detention order clearly show that the
appellant is not amenable to ordinary course of law. It also
shows that even after his release on bail from the prison on
various occasions, he again started indulging in the same
– 23 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
type of offences, particularly, threatening the public life,
damaging public property, etc. All these aspects have been
meticulously considered by the detaining authority and after
finding that in order to maintain public order, since his
activities are prejudicial to the public, causing harm and
danger, the detaining authority detained him as “goonda”
under Karnataka Act 12 of 1985 for a period of 12 months
and the same was rightly approved by the Advisory Board
and the State Government. Inasmuch as the detaining
authority has taken note of all the relevant materials and
strictly followed all the safeguards as provided in the Act
ensuring the liberty of the detenue, we are in entire
agreement with the decision of the detaining authority as
well as the impugned order of the High Court affirming the
same.”
xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx
“20. In the case on hand, we have already extracted
criminality, criminal activities starting from the age of 30
and details relating to eleven cases mentioned in the
grounds of detention. It is not in dispute that in one case he
has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a term of nine years. He had been
acquitted in two cases and four cases are pending against
him wherein he was granted bail by the courts. It is the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that in spite
of his continuous activities causing threat to maintenance of
public order, he was getting bail one after another and
indulging in the same activities. In such circumstances,
based on the relevant materials and satisfying itself,
namely, that it would not be possible to control his
habituality in continuing the criminal activities by resorting
to normal procedure, the detaining authority passed an
order detaining him under Act 12 of 1985.”
57. Hence, from the FIRs mentioned in the detention
order dated 04.09.2024(Annexure-1), it is clear that crime
– 24 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
committed by the petitioner ranges to murder, attempt to
murder, extortion etc. and the cases under Arms Act has
also been registered against the petitioner. Thus,
petitioner habitually commits offences punishable under
section Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal
Code as defined in section 2(d)(i) of the Act.
58. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid
factual aspect is of the view that there is no violation of
Section 17 and from the records it appears that the
petitioner has come under the purview of definition of
„’Anti-social Element” as defined under section 2(d)(i) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. The detaining
authority respondent no.4 while passing the detention
order 04.09.2024(Annexure-1), under section 12 of the Act
was satisfied that petitioner if released from jail will act in
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
59. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the orders
of detention need no interference.
60. Accordingly, the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by
the respondent no. 4, order dated 13.09.2024 and order
dated 21.10.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 and the
subsequent orders dated 29.11.2024, 20.02.2025 and
04.06.2025 extending the period of preventive detention
are sustained and upheld.
– 25 –
2025:JHHC:25978-DB
61. The writ petition stands dismissed.
62. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
dispose of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Alankar/
A.F.R
- 26 -
[ad_1]
Source link