Jharkhand High Court
Devendra Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief … on 22 April, 2026
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (Cr.) (DB) No. 65 of 2026
Devendra Munda, aged about 40 years, S/o Chamo Munda, R/o:
Village- Simratari, P.O. & P.S.- Pathalgadda, District-Chatra,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand at Secretariat, Project Bhawan, HEC Compound, P.O. &
P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, HEC Compound, P.O. &
P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand Police Headquarter, HEC
Compound, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District-Chatra.
5. The Deputy Collector in charge, District General Branch, Chatra, P.O.,
P.S. & District-Chatra.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.-Chatra, District-
Chatra, Jharkhand.
7. The Circle Officer, Gidhour, P.O. and P.S.- Gidhour, District-Chatra,
Jharkhand.
8. Officer-in-Charge, Pathalgadda P.S., P.O. & P.S.- Pathalgadda,
District-Chatra, Jharkhand.
9. The DIG, Investigation Department, CID, Ranchi, Jharkhand, P.O. &
P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Deepankar, AC to G.A.-III
---
C.A.V on 30.03.2026 Pronounced on 22/04/2026
Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the detention order
passed against the petitioner by the respondent no.2 in Memo No.
18/PITNDPS-23/2025- 3991/Ranchi dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure-3)
and ground of detention contained in Memo No. 18/PITNDPS-23/2025-
4011 dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure-3/1).
1
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
Further prayer has been made to quash Memo No. 18/PITNDPS-
23/2025-4929/Ranchi dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure-4) by which the
detention order 14.10.2025, has been confirmed and order was passed
for detention of the petitioner for one year from 23.10.2025.
A prayer has also been made for investigation by an
independent/specialized agency like the CID, CBI etc. on alleged false
implication of the petitioner on the basis of sanha and earlier
implication in Pathalgadda P.S. Case No. 17 of 2024 in which the
petitioner had already been enlarged on bail by this court.
Factual Matrix
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been granted
bail vide order dated 02.05.2025 in B.A. No. 3481 of 2025 in relation
to Pathalgadda P.S. Case No. 17 of 2024 corresponding to N.D.P.S.
Case No. 207 of 2024 for offence registered under Sections 17(B),
18(B), 21(B), 22(B), 25, 27, 28 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (hereinafter referred as N.D.P.S.
Act) said to be pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge-
III, Chatra. The bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by
this Court in B.A. No. 7864 of 2024 vide order dated 21.11.2024.
3. After being enlarged on bail, the petitioner claimed to have been
working as farmer and after receiving the letter of detention dated
17.10.2025 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Chatra, the
petitioner came to know that the Principle Secretary, Department of
Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi has passed a detention order against the petitioner vide order
2
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure-3), which was confirmed by order dated
19.12.2025(Annexure-4) and the period of detention is one year from
23.10.2025.
4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid detention order the present
petition has been preferred.
Arguments of the petitioner:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Memo No.
18/PITNDPS-23/2025- 4011 dated 15.10.2025(Annexure-3/1), issued
by the Respondent no.2, whereby petitioner was communicated ground
of his detention issued by the detaining authority Respondent No. 2
Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand and has submitted that the
following cases/sanah are said to have been lodged against the
petitioner: –
i. Ramgarh P.S Case No. 100 of 2018 dated 18.03.2018, under
Section 17/18(b)/21 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in which the petitioner
has been convicted but has been enlarged on bail by the High Court
in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 225 of 2020 vide order dated 02.03.2021.
ii. Pathalgadda P.S. Case No. 17 of 2024 dated 31.05.2024 under
Section 17(B)/18(B)/21(B)/22(B)/25/27/28/29 of N.D.P.S. Act in
which the petitioner has been enlarged on bail by the High Court
vide order dated 02.05.2025 and the case is pending.
iii. Sanha has been lodged against the petitioner by Pathalgadda P.S.
Sanha No. 20 of 2025 dated 20.06.2025 alleging that the petitioner
is involved in activities relating to sale and purchase of Narcotic
substance and he is provoking the young villagers to engage in such
activity by giving temptation of money. It has also been stated in3
2026:JHHC:11827-DBthe Sanha that other criminals are getting associated and therefore,
the villagers are neither opposing his activity nor they are giving
any information to the police.
iv. Another Sanha entry bearing Pathalgadda P.S. Sanha No. 19 of
2025 dated 27.06.2025 has been registered with similar allegation.
Further in the detention order, there is another Sanha entry with the
same number i.e. Pathalgadda P.S Sanha No. 19 of 2025 with
similar allegations though the same is dated 16.07.2025.
6. It has been submitted that the record of the case reveals that the
proposal for preventive detention was initiated on 31.07.2025 by Sub-
Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) Simaria, culminating in the order of
detention dated 14.10.2025 which is after 2 ½ months.
7. It has been further submitted that the delay in passing the order
of detention has snapped the ‘live and proximate link’ between the
alleged prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention which the
detaining authority have failed to consider. The detention authority has
also failed to consider that the petitioner was released on bail by the
orders of this Court. He has relied upon the judgement passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura
and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333; paragraph 14 and 15 wherein
adverse effect of unreasonable and unexplained delay in order of
detention and securing a detenu and detaining him, has been considered
and it has been held that such delay vitiates the detention order. It has
also been held that the same principles would apply even in case of
delay in passing the order of detention from the date of the proposal and
the common underlying principle in both the above situations would be
4
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
the ‘live & proximate link’ between the grounds of detention and the
avowed purpose of detention.
Arguments of the respondents:
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has submitted
that the proposal for detention of the petitioner reached the detaining
authority, the respondent no.2, vide letter dated 27.09.2025(Annexure-
B) served on 03.10.2025 and the proposal was taken up and detention
order was passed on 14.10.2025, that is, within 11 days from the date
of receipt of the proposal. The order of detention was communicated to
the petitioner in terms of letter dated 17.10.2025(Anneure-2) and the
petitioner was taken into custody from 23.10.2025.
9. Learned counsel has submitted that the delay, if any, has to be
seen from the date of receipt of proposal by the competent authority,
the respondent no.2 and any period prior to that date is of no
consequence. He submits that in such circumstances case of Sushanta
Kumar Banik(supra), passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not
help the petitioner in any manner.
Analysis
10. 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 petition and the counter
affidavits.
11. Based upon the aforesaid, in the present case, the following
issues require consideration-
5
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
i. Whether there is unreasonable delay in passing the impugned
order of detention dated 14.10.2025, though the proposal for
preventive detention was initiated on 31.07.2025 by the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) Simaria?
ii. Whether detaining authority has established ‘live and
proximate link’ between the grounds of detention and the
avowed purpose of detention?
iii. Whether the grant of bail to the petitioner in pending cases is
ground for his release from the preventive detention passed
under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988?
Re: Issue No. (i)
12. Regarding, the issue no.(i), learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the impugned order of detention dated 14.10.2025, was
passed by the Respondent No.2 Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and
Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand, and
there is unreasonable delay in passing the detention order as the
proposal for detention was initiated vide memo no. 1040 dated
31.07.2025 by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Simaria, and hence,
the impugned dentition order has been passed by the detaining authority
after delay of two and half months. So, the impugned preventive
detention order dated 14.10.2025 and proposal report as contained in
memo no. 1040 dated 31.07.2025 has no close nexus and hence,
requires interference by this court.
13. This court finds that that the proposal for detention of the
petitioner with the required report containing the materials was
forwarded by Respondent No.4 D.C, Chatra to the detaining authority
respondent no.2, on 27.09.2025(Annexure-B) which reached to the
6
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
detaining authority on 03.10.2025 and the detaining authority
respondent no.2, after considering the said report accompanying the
proposal for detention, passed the order of detention on 14.10.2025 and
the petitioner was taken into custody on 23.10.2025.
14. This court also finds that all the communications prior to the date
27.09.2025, when the proposal for detention was forwarded by
Respondent No.4 D.C, Chatra, to the detaining authority respondent
no.2, are not the proposal for detention, but are related to the
report/information regarding the background and the activities of the
petitioner which culminated into a proposal for detention and was
forwarded to the detaining authority respondent no.2, with supporting
documents on 27.09.2025(Annexure-B), which reached the detaining
authority respondent no.2 on 03.10.2025.
15. Hence, communication dated 31.07.2025 by Sub-Divisional
Police Officer (SDPO) Simaria, to Superintendent of Police (S.P.),
Chatra was just a report/information for initiating a Proposal for
detention of the petitioner based on the communication dated
29.07.2025 from the officer-in-charge of Pathalgadda police station.
16. So, the proposal for detention was pending before the detaining
authority respondent no. 2 only from 03.10.2025 and the order of
detention was passed on 14.10.2025 followed by arrest of the petitioner
on 23.10.2025.
17. Thus, it cannot be said that the detaining authority respondent
no.2, took 2 and ½ months time from the date of proposal to pass the
order of detention of the petitioner by counting it from
7
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
29.07.2025/31.07.2025. Rather all such communications prior to
27.09.2025 reveal that there were communications amongst the
authorities who were to submit the proposal with a report/supporting
document to the detaining authority respondent no.2. Thus, the
argument of the learned counsel for the detenue/petitioner that the
communication dated 31.07.2025 was the proposal for detention is
devoid of any merits and is misconceived.
18. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik (Supra) relied on by the
learned counsel for the detenue/petitioner, there was delay of almost 5
months in passing the order of preventive detention. In the instant case,
even if best case of the petitioner is taken into account, there is a gap of
almost 2 ½ months when counted from 31.07.2025 by which
report/information was forwarded by the Sub Divisional Police Officer
(S.D.P.O.) Simaria to the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) Chatra. Thus,
the period of 2 ½ months as alleged in the present case is just half of
delay of 5 months which was involved in the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik (Supra).
19. Further, ongoing through the judgment of Sushanta Kumar
Banik (Supra), this court finds that in this case proposal dated
14.07.2021 was forwarded by the Director General of Police to the
Secretary (Home), Government of Tripura, who had passed detention
order dated 12.11.2021, and hence, there was delay of about five
months.
20. Hence, in case of Sushanta Kumar Banik (Supra), delay of five
months was caused by the detaining authority. But, in the present case,
8
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
there is no such delay by the detaining authority as proposal for
detention was pending before the detaining authority respondent No.2,
only from 03.10.2025(Annexure-B) and order of detention was passed
by the detaining authority on 14.10.2025(Annexure-3) i.e. within 11
days, which cannot be said to be undue delay in passing the impugned
detention order as contended by the learned counsel for the detenue.
Re: Issue No.(ii)
21. Now, coming to the second issue i.e. whether detaining authority
has established ‘live and proximate link’ between the grounds of
detention & the avowed purpose of detention. Learned counsel for the
detenue/petitioner has submitted that the delay in passing the order of
detention has snapped the ‘live and proximate link’ between the alleged
prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention which the detaining
authority have failed to consider.
22. Before, proceeding further, it would be pertinent to mention the
case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587,
wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles to be
observed by the Constitutional Court while examining the legality of
orders of preventive detention. Paragraph-28 of this judgment is quoted
herein below-
“28. In the circumstances of a given case, a constitutional court
when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive
detention would be entitled to examine whether:
28.1. The order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit
subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such
satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which9
2026:JHHC:11827-DBvalidity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine
qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied;
28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority
has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is
not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the
statute;
28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which
it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not
authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires;
28.4. The detaining authority has acted independently or under the
dictation of another body;
28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of
policy or in any other manner not authorised by the governing
statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each
individual case;
28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials
which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority
has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate;
28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind
existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of
a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on
material which is stale;
28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are
such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and
prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to
the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction
is to be reached;
28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests
are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with
sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention,
giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly
adhered to.”
10
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
23. Hence, Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ameena Begum v. State
of Telangana (supra), on the issue of subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority has laid down that the order based on the requisite
satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the
absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or
law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated,
would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being
satisfied. Hon’ble Apex Court further laid down that the court may
examine that the satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind
existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a
person and the imperative need to detain or is based on material which
is stale.
24. In the present case, ongoing to the ground of detention, which
was issued to the detenue, by the detaining authority Respondent No. 2
vide Memo No. 18/PITNDPS-23/2025- 4011 dated
15.10.2025(Anneure-3/1), the sequence of criminal cases registered
against the detenue is as follows:
S.N Dates Events
0.
1 18.03.2018 In Ramgarh P.S Case No. 100 of 2018 dated
06.01.2020 18.03.2018, instituted under Section 17/18(b)/21 of
02.03.2021 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 for alleged recovery of 02 KG
700 Gram of opium from the petitioner, the
petitioner has been convicted vide order dated
06.01.2020 and been sentenced for rigorous
imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lac. He
has been enlarged on bail by the High Court in Cr.
Appeal (D.B.) No. 225 of 2020 vide order dated
02.03.2021.
11
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
2 31.05.2024 In Pathalgadda P.S. Case No. 17 of 2024 dated
21.11.2024 31.05.2024 on account of recovery of 2.2 KG of
02.05.2025 opium from the house of the petitioner a case has
been registered under Section
17(B)/18(B)/21(B)/22(B)/25/27/28/29 of N.D.P.S.
Act, charge sheet has been submitted on 26.08.2024.
The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by
the High Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 in B.A
No. 7864 of 2024.
However, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail by
the High Court vide order dated 02.05.2025 in B.A.
No. 3481 of 2025 considering the period of custody
and the case is pending at District Court, Chatra.
3 20.06.2025 Sanha has been lodged against the petitioner by
Pathalgadda P.S. Sanha No. 20 of 2025 dated
20.06.2025 alleging that the petitioner is involved in
activities relating to sale and purchase of Narcotic
substance and he is provoking the young villagers to
engage in such activity by giving temptation of
money. It has also been stated in the Sanha that other
criminals are getting associated and therefore, the
villagers are neither opposing his activity nor they
are giving any information to the police.
4 27.06.2025 Another, Sanha entry bearing Pathalgadda P.S.
16.07.2025 Sanha No. 19 of 2025 dated 27.06.2025 has been
registered with similar allegation. Further in the
order, there is mention of another Sanha entry i.e.
Pathalgadda P.S Sanha No. 19 of 2025 which is
dated 16.07.2025 with similar allegations.
25. Hence, in the present case, it is not in dispute that in Ramgarh
P.S Case No. 100 of 2018 dated 18.03.2018, the petitioner was
convicted in the offence arising out of NDPS Act for recovery of 2 Kg
700 grams of opium vide order dated 06.01.2020 and was released on
bail in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 225 of 2020 vide order dated 02.03.2021.
26. Thereafter, again FIR was registered against the petitioner being
Pathalgadda P.S. Case No. 17 of 2024 dated 31.05.2024 on account of
recovery of 2.2 Kg of opium, in which his bail application was rejected
12
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
on merit on 21.11.2024 and subsequently vide order dated 02.05.2025,
the petitioner was directed to be released on bail solely on account of
the period of custody.
27. The allegations involved in the present case for the purposes of
detention are that the petitioner was provoking the young villagers to
engage in dealing with narcotic substance by giving temptation of
money and other criminals were also getting associated and therefore
the villagers were neither opposing the activity of the petitioner nor they
were giving information to the police.
28. Even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted for the sake of
arguments that there has been a delay of 2 ½ months between the
proposal and the order of detention, this court is of the considered view
that in the facts of this case such period cannot be said to have lost ‘live
and proximate link’ between the grounds of detention and the avowed
purpose of detention.
29. However, as already held above, there was a delay of 11 days
from the date when the proposal was forwarded by Respondent No.4
D.C, Chatra to the detaining authority respondent no. 2 on 27.09.2025,
which reached the detaining authority on 03.10.2025 and the detaining
authority respondent no.2 passed the order of detention on 14.10.2025
and the petitioner was arrested on 23.10.2025, that is, soon after the
order of detention. Thus, also in the aforesaid view of the matter, the
judgement of Sushanta Kumar Banik (Supra), which has been relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
13
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
30. Further, the, satisfaction has been arrived by the detaining
authority bearing in mind existence of live and proximate link between
the past conduct of a petitioner and material which is not stale and is in
consonance of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and others(supra).
31. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the two
out of three sanha entries, there is certain mismatch with regard to
sanha number, inasmuch as, two sanhas have same number, but
different dates. However, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with
the order of detention as it is not in dispute that sanha was made in
connection with the activity of the petitioner that he was provoking the
young villagers to engage in sale and purchase of narcotics substance
by giving temptation of money and other criminals were getting
associated and therefore, the villagers were neither opposing his activity
nor they were giving any information to the police.
32. This Court is of the considered view that neither there is any
delay on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of
detention so as to snap the ‘live & proximate link’ between the grounds
of detention & the avowed purpose of detention nor there is any
unreasonable delay on the part of the executing authority in passing the
order of detention of detention which was passed on 14.10.2025, and
then detenue/petitioner was arrested on 23.10.2025.
33. Further, as discussed above, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik (Supra), is
clearly distinguishable on facts of the present case as in Sushanta
14
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
Kumar Banik (Supra) there was delay of more than five months in
passing the order of detention and such delay was held to have severed
the ‘live and proximate link’ between the grounds of detention and the
avowed purpose of detention order and the order of detention was also
found to be vitiated on account of suppression of material facts from the
competent authority passing the detention order, but, in the present case
neither there is any undue delay in passing the detention order by the
detaining authority Respondent no.2 nor there is suppression of any
material facts in the proposal which was forwarded to the detaining
authority.
34. In the present case, the authority concerned while passing the
impugned detention order which was passed on 14.10.2025(Annexure-
3) has taken into consideration the entire history of accusation against
the petitioner and only thereafter has passed the order of detention.
Hence, satisfaction has been arrived by the detaining authority bearing
in mind existence of live and proximate link between the past conduct
of a petitioner and material which is not stale.
Re: Issue No.(iii)
35. Again, coming to the third issue i.e. whether the grant of bail to
the petitioner in pending cases is ground for his release from the
preventive detention passed under section3(1) of the Prevention of
Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1988? Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that detaining
authority while passing the impugned detention order dated 14.10.2025,
did not consider that petitioner was enlarged on bail by the court of law
15
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
in pending cases and hence, detention order cannot be sustained.
36. This Court finds that two FIRs were registered against the
detenue/petitioner being Ramgarh P.S Case No. 100 of 2018 dated
18.03.2018 and Pathalgadda P.S. Case No. 17 of 2024 dated
31.05.2024.
37. In Ramgarh P.S Case No. 100 of 2018 dated 18.03.2018, the
petitioner was convicted vide order dated 06.01.2020 and sentenced for
rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lac in the offences
arising out of NDPS Act. The petitioner was released on bail in Cr.
Appeal (D.B.) No. 225 of 2020 vide order dated 02.03.2021.
38. In Pathalgadda P.S. Case No. 17 of 2024 dated 31.05.2024,
petitioner has been enlarged on bail by court of law.
39. So far as issue of release of the detenue on bail is concerned,
this court finds that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority that in spite of his continuous activities causing threat to
maintenance of public order and in such circumstances, based on the
relevant materials and satisfying itself, 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 him under the Act.
40. The ground of bail cannot be said to affect 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
16
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
competent authority anticipating the criminality of the concerned and
it would be evident from the accusation made in the ground of
detention which was issued to the detenue, by the detaining authority
Respondent No. 2 vide Memo No. 18/PITNDPS-23/2025- 4011
dated 15.10.2025(Annexure-3/1).
41. 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 Versus
Government of Karnataka and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 215
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
the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court had noted the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order
against the detenue, for the ready reference Paragraph-17 and 20 of
D.M. Nagaraja(supra) case is quoted herein below –
“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 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”
17
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
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 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.”
42. From the FIR mentioned in ground of detention issued to the
detenue, by the detaining authority Respondent No. 2 vide Memo No.
18/PITNDPS-23/2025- 4011 dated 15.10.2025(Anneure-3/1), this court
finds that first FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offence
involving NDPS Act, in the year 2018 being Ramgarh P.S Case No. 100
of 2018 dated 18.03.2018, wherein detente was convicted by the
learned trial Court by order dated 06.01.2020 and sentenced for
rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lac and was
18
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
released on bail in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 225 of 2020 vide order dated
02.03.2021.
43. But, even after his conviction in Ramgarh P.S Case No. 100 of
2018, the detenue did not repent and again after six years, detenue was
involved in offences relating to NDPS Act wherein 2.2. Kg of opium
was recovered from the detenue in the year 2024 for which Ramgarh
P.S Case No. 100 of 2018 was registered against the petitioner, which
is pending.
44. Thus, from the aforesaid ground of detention issued to
detenue/petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner is habitually involved
in offences relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substance, and
further on the basis of subjective satisfaction the detaining authority
has arrived in conclusion that in the interest of society, the petitioner
must remain in jail so that he cannot disturb public order in any manner
and the said observation is according to the ratio led down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.M Nagaraja Versus Government
of Karnataka and others(supra) therefore, the said observation of the
detaining authority cannot be said to be suffer from an error.
45. This court, therefor, is of view that order of detention dated
14.10.2025 contained in Memo No. 18/PITNDPS-23/2025-
3991/Ranchi (Annexure-3), ground of detention issued vide Memo No.
18/PITNDPS-23/2025-4011 dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure-3/1) and
Memo No. 18/PITNDPS-23/2025-4929/Ranchi dated 19.12.2025
(Annexure-4) by which the detention order 14.10.2025, has been
confirmed, needs no interference.
19
2026:JHHC:11827-DB
46. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
47. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also dismissed as not
pressed.
I Agree.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Date of order/Judgment: 22.04.2026
Rakesh/Pankaj/-
Date of Uploading:22.04.2026
AFR
20
[ad_1]
Source link
