Jharkhand High Court
Kuleshwar Yadav @ Kaleshwar Yadav @ … vs Union Of India on 21 July, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) (DB) No.121 of 2026
-----
Kuleshwar Yadav @ Kaleshwar Yadav @ Koleshwar Yadav, aged about
54 years, Son of Late Moti Yadav, Resident of Village-Kolhuwa, PO-
Jamtar, P.S-Bashishthnagar, District-Chatra, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India.
2. The Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison &
Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having its office at Police
Head Quarter, Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, having its office at Police Head
Quarter, Dhurwa, P.O & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Chatra, at Chatra, PO& PS Chatra, District-
Chatra.
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Bashishthnagar Police Station, at PO & PS-
Bashishthnagar, District-Chatra.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Pallav, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Achyut Keshav, Sr. AAG
Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to Sr. AAG
-------
C.A.V. on 10.07.2026 Pronounced on 21/07/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 15.01.2026
(Annexure-1) passed by respondent no.2, the Additional Principal Secretary,
Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, whereby direction was passed for detention of the petitioner under
Section 3(i) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the
1
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
Act,1988) in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi and further prayer has
also been made to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 15.01.2026.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition,
which are required to be enumerated, read as under: –
i. The respondent No. 2 has issued the order dated 15.01.2026 in
exercise of the power conferred under Section 3(1) PITNDPS
Act, 1988 with a view to prevent the petitioner from engaging in
Illicit Trafficking of NDPS in future and accordingly directed
the petitioner to be detained and kept in Birsa Munda Central
Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi. The grounds of detention have separately
been issued on 15.01.2026 itself on the basis of the facts brought
by the District Administration, Chatra, wherein, reference of ten
criminal cases have been made which are as under: –
(i) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.10/14 dated 03.02.2014,
(ii) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.79/18 dated 21.11.2018,
(iii) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.51/2021 dated 24.05.2021,
(iv) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.05/2025 dated 19.01.2025,
(v) Simaria P.S Case No.05/2008 dated 04.01.2008,
(vi) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.45/2007 dated 26.08.2007,
(vii) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.24/25 dated 21.07.2025,
(viii) Bashisthnagar P.S Diary Entry No.17/25 dated 23.07.2025,
(ix) Bashisthnagar P.S Diary Entry No.20/25 dated
26.07.2025, and
(x) Bashisthnagar P.S Diary Entry No.18/25 dated
31.07.2025.
2
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
ii. The order of detention was passed on 15.01.2026 against the
petitioner, however, the same was served to him after
30.01.2026 while he was languishing in judicial custody in
Chatra Jail, Chatra in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No.
01/2001, Corresponding to S.T No.380/2018.
iii. The petitioner has faced trial in Bashishthnagar P.S Case
No.10/2014 and has been acquitted by the learned trial Court
vide judgment dated 17.01.2026. It has further been stated that
the petitioner has also been acquitted in Bashishthnagar P.S Case
No.79/2018 vide judgment dated 03.02.2026.
iv. The petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in
Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.5/2025 by order dated 11.06.2025
passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.1001/2025 by the
learned trial Court whereas in Bashishthnagar P.S Case
No.51/2021, he has been enlarged on bail vide order dated
10.09.2025 in B.A No.7717/2025 by the Hon’ble High Court.
v. Simariya P.S. Case No. 05/2008 and Bashisthnagar P.S. Case
No. 45/2007 are admittedly not cases under the NDPS Act. In
Simariya P.S. Case No. 05/2008, the petitioner has already been
enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble High Court in B.A
No. 4830/2025, whereas in Bashisthnagar P.S. Case No.
45/2007, the petitioner has never been remanded to custody till
date. The said cases, therefore, neither disclose any involvement
of the petitioner in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs nor establish
any live or proximate link warranting preventive detention under
the PITNDPS Act. Consequently, reliance upon such unrelated
3
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
and irrelevant cases for passing the detention order dated
15.01.2026 is impermissible in law, rendering the impugned
detention order arbitrary, void and sustainable.
3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of detention and orders of
extension of detention, the present writ petition has been preferred.
Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner:
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following
grounds in assailing the impugned decision: –
(i) The writ petitioner has illegally been confined without any
subjective satisfaction of the competent authority as also the
Advisory Board has confirmed the decision of confinement without
taking into consideration the issue of subjective satisfaction of the
competent authority.
(ii) The issue of subjective satisfaction, in the facts of the present case,
is relevant since the writ petitioner was made accused in connection
with the cases of illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances. In the detention order dated 15.01.2026,
there is reference of ten criminal cases referred hereinabove, but in
Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.10/2014 vide judgment dated
17.01.2026 and Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.79/2018 vide
judgment dated 03.02.2026, petitioner has been acquitted by the
learned Trial Court. In addition to that, the petitioner had been
enlarged on bail in Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.51/2021 and
Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.5/2025, by Court of Law. Therefore,
4
2026:JHHC:21721-DBit is a case where the sanctioning authority cannot be said to have
the subjective satisfaction.
(iii) It has also contended that the Station Diary entries relied upon in
the grounds of detention, namely Bashisthnagar P.S. Station Diary
No. 24/2005 dated 21.07.2025, Station Diary No. 17/2005 dated
23.07.2025, Station Diary No. 20/2005 dated 26.07.2025 and
Station Diary No. 18/2005 dated 31.07.2025, are merely internal
police diary entries. It is well settled that such Station Diary entries,
having no evidentiary value in the eye of law, cannot form the basis
of subjective satisfaction for invoking preventive detention.
(iv) It is a case where the petitioner although has been ordered to be
detained vide order dated 15.01.2026 but the said impugned order
was served to the petitioner on 30.01.2026, i.e., after lapse of about
more than fifteen days which raises considerable doubt in the case
of detaining authorities.
(v) It has been contended that there are no direct or specific
allegations against the petitioner, rather his implication has arisen
merely on the basis of secret information or alleged confessional
statements of co-accused, which, in absence of corroboration, has
no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.
(vi) It has been contended that the cases lodged against the petitioner do
not establish any direct, proximate or live link between the alleged
past activities of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned
detention order suffers from non-application of mind and without
substantive satisfaction as required under law.
5
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
(vii) It has also been contended that Simariya P.S Case No.05/2008 and
Bashisthnagar PS case No.45/2007 are admittedly not cases under
the NDPS Act and, as such, the aforesaid cases neither disclose any
involvement of the petitioner in illicit traffic or narcotic drugs nor
establish any live or proximate link warranting preventive detention
under the PITNDPS Act. Therefore, reliance upon such unrelated
and irrelevant cases for passing the detention order dated
15.01.2026 is impermissible in law.
(viii) In order to buttress the aforesaid arguments, the learned counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011)5 SCC
244; Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur, (2012) 2
SCC 176; Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 2 SCC
81; Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and others, (2023)9
SCC 587 and Charitra Kumar Dangi @ Chalitar Dangi V. State
of Jharkhand [ W.P(Cr.) No.557 of 2024].
5. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that
the order of detention, therefore, suffers from an error and, hence, not
sustainable in the eye of law.
Submission of the learned counsel for the State:
6. Per contra, Mr. Achyut Keshav, learned AAG appearing for the
respondents, on the basis of the counter affidavit has taken the following
grounds in support of his pleadings:
(i) There is no error in the impugned order, since, the petitioner was
found to be habitual in trafficking of the narcotics which would be
6
2026:JHHC:21721-DBevident from the impugned order wherein ten cases registered under
the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner.
(ii) It has been contended that on the proposal sent by the S.P, Chatra
vide Memo No.847/DCB, dated 04.12.2025, the Deputy
Commissioner, Chatra vide its letter no.1517 dated 22.12.2025
submitted the proposal to the Principal Secretary, Department of
Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Jharkhand for detention
of the petitioner invoking the provision of section 3(1) of the
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act, 1988).
(iii) It has been contended that at the time of passing detention order, the
petitioner was not acquitted from charge in any of the four cases
registered against him under NDPS Act as in Bashishthnagar P.S
Case No.10/2014, he was acquitted on 17.01.2026 and in
Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.79/2018, the petitioner was acquitted
on 03.02.2026, whereas the detention order has been passed prior
to that, i.e., on 15.01.2026.
(iv) It has also been contended that still two cases, i.e., Bashisth Nagar
P.S Case No.51/21 and Bashisth Nagar P.S Case No.05/25, which
pertains to the NDPS Act, are pending against the petitioner.
(v) It has been submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he
deals in illegal trafficking of narcotic drugs and, as such, various
cases have been registered against the petitioner at different time,
under the PITNDPS Act, 1988. Therefore, it cannot be said that
petitioner has been charge sheeted in all these cases with ulterior
motive and he has been implicated on the basis of confession of any
7
2026:JHHC:21721-DBparticular co-accused which indicate the involvement of the
petitioner in illicit drug trade.
(vi) It has been contended that after receipt of proposal of the Deputy
Commissioner, Chatra, the respondent no.2 after examining and
being satisfied with the materials contained in the said proposal has
passed the impugned order of detention against the petitioner under
section 3(i) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 which needs no interference.
(vii) It has been canvassed that since the petitioner was already in jail
custody in Chatra Jail and, as such, the ground of detention has been
served to him on 30.01.2026 within the stipulated period.
(viii) It has been contended that the said detention order was considered
by the learned Advisory Board and on 17.03.2026 in which the
petitioner was heard by the learned Advisory Board and it was
opined by the learned Advisory Board that “the Detenu has stated
that he has been served with a copy of the detention order” and the
learned Advisory Board further opined that “after considering the
entire matter, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for
the detention of the detenue.”
(ix) Referring the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the state has
submitted that the detention order is in accordance with law and, as
such, it needs no interference.
(x) It has been contended that after aforesaid opinion of the learned
Advisory Board, the detention order dated 15.01.2026 has been
confirmed under section 9(f) of the Act,1988 and the period of
detention has been fixed as one year from the date of detention
8
2026:JHHC:21721-DBunder section 11 of the Act,1988 vide Departmental Order No.
1300, dated 30.03.2026 which is sustainable in the eyes of law.
(xi) It has been contended that the fact of the case of Charitra Kumar
Dangi @ Chalitar Dangi V. State of Jharkhand (supra) is different
from the case of this petitioner. In the case of Charitra Kumar
Dangi, detenue was acquitted from the charges framed against him
in all the cases registered against him including the cases under
NDPS Act whereas in the present case, the petitioner has been
acquitted in two cases only out of four cases lodged against him
under the NDPS Act and further the said acquittal orders were
passed after the passing of the impugned order of detention,
therefore the ratio of the said case will not be applicable in the fact
and circumstances of the instant case.
(xii) It has been contended that there is no inordinate delay between
proposal of detention, issuance of order of detention and complying
the order of detention and, as such, it cannot be said that live and
proximate link between past activities and detention order do not
establish.
(xiii) Learned counsel has further submitted that it is also incorrect on the
part of the petitioner to take the ground that there is no subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority rather, each and every aspect
of the matter has been taken into consideration by the competent
sanctioning authority which on being deliberated by the Advisory
Board has upheld the decision. When two authorities have upheld
the issue of confining the petitioner in detention, it cannot be said
that there is no subjective satisfaction.
9
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, based upon the
aforesaid grounds, have submitted that it is, therefore, not a case where the
order of detention is said to suffer from an error.
Analysis
8. 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.
9. The issues which require consideration herein are –
(i) Whether the grant of bail to the petitioner in pending cases and acquittal
in some cases, registered under the NDPS Act, 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?
(ii) Whether there is violation of section 3(3) of the Prevention of Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 in
communicating ground of detention to the petitioner?
10. But, before considering the said issues, the statutory provision as
contained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 with its object and intent needs to be
referred herein.
11. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 has been
enacted keeping in view that in recent years, India has been facing a problem
of transit traffic in illicit drugs. The spillover from such traffic has caused
problems of abuse and addiction. This trend has created an illicit demand for
drugs within the country which may result in the increase of illicit cultivation
and manufacture of drugs. Although a number of legislative, administrative
10
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
and other preventive measures, including the deterrent penal provisions in the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985, have been taken by
the Government, the transit traffic in illicit drugs had not been completely
eliminated. It was, therefore, felt that a preventive detention law should be
enacted with a view to effectively immobilising the traffickers. The
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act, 1974 provides for preventive detention in relation to smuggling of drugs
and psychotropic substances, but it cannot be invoked to deal with persons
engaged in illicit traffic of drugs and psychotropic substances within the
country. It was, therefore, felt that a separate legislation should be enacted for
preventive detention of persons engaged in any kind of illicit traffic in narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances.
12. The relevant provisions which require consideration are Sections 3, 6,
9 and 11 of the Act,1988, which are necessary to be referred herein which read
hereunder as :-
“3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.-(I) The Central
Government or a State Government, or any officer of the Central
Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that
Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by
that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the
rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the
purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with
respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to
preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order
directing that such person be detained.
(2) When any order of detention is made by a State Government
or by an officer empowered by a State Government, the State
Government shall, within ten days, forward to the Central Government
a report in respect of the order.
(3) For the purposes of clause (5) of Article 22 of the
Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of
a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made11
2026:JHHC:21721-DBshall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not
later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons
to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of
detention.
6. Grounds of detention severable.-Where a person has been detained
in pursuance of an order of detention under sub-section (1) of section 3
which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention
shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds
and accordingly-
(a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative
merely because one or some of the grounds is or are-
(i) vague,
(ii) non-existent,
(iii) not relevant,
(iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or
(v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever,
and it is not therefore possible to hold that the Government or officer
making such order would have been satisfied as provided in sub-section
(I) of section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and
made the order of detention;
(b) the Government or officer making the order of detention shall
be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said sub-
section (I) after being satisfied as provided in that sub-section with
reference to the remaining ground or grounds.
9. Advisory Boards.-For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4)
and subclause (c) of clause (7) of article 22 of the Constitution,-
(a) the Central Government’ and each State Government shall,
whenever necessary, constitute one or more Advisory Boards each of
which shall consist of a Chairman and two other persons possessing the
qualifications specified in sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of article 22 of
the Constitution;
(b) save as otherwise provided in section 10, the appropriate
Government shall, within five weeks from the date of detention of a
person under a detention order, make a reference in respect thereof to
the Advisory Board constituted under clause (a) to enable the Advisory
Board to make the report under sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of article
22 of the Constitution;
(c) the Advisory Board to which a reference is made under clause
(b) shall after considering the reference and the materials placed before
it and after calling for such further information as it may deem
necessary from the appropriate Government or from any person, called
for the purpose through the appropriate Government or from the person
concerned, and if, in any particular case, it considers it essential so to
12
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
do or if the person concerned desires to be heard in person, after
hearing him in person, prepare its report specifying in a separate
paragraph thereof its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient
cause for the detention of the person concerned and submit the same
within eleven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned;
(d) when there is a difference of opinion among the members
forming the Advisory Board, the opinion of the majority of such
members shall be deemed to be the opinion of the Board;
(e) a person against whom an order of detention has been made
under this Act shall not be entitled to appear by any legal practitioner
in any matter connected with the reference to the Advisory Board and
the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report, excepting that
part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is
specified, shall be confidential;
(f) in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there
is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the
appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue
the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and
in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its
opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned,
the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and cause
the person to be released forthwith.
11. Maximum period of detention.-The maximum period for which any
person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which
the provisions of section 10 do not apply and which has been confirmed
under clause (f) of section 9 shall be one year from the date of detention,
and the maximum period for which any person may be detained in
pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 10
apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9, read
with sub-section (2) of section 10, shall be two years from the date of
detention:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall
affect the power of appropriate Government in either case to revoke or
modify the detention order at any earlier time.”
13. It is evident that the Act, 1988 has been enacted since India has been
facing a problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. It was, therefore, felt that a
preventive detention law should be enacted with a view to effectively
immobilising the traffickers. The Central Government and the State
Governments have been empowered to make orders of detention with respect
13
2026:JHHC:21721-DBto any person in respect of whom an order of detention is made under the
Ordinance at any time before the 31st July, 1990 may be detained without
obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board for a period not exceeding one
year from the date of his detention if the detaining authority is satisfied that
such person is engaged, or is likely to engage, in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances in any area highly vulnerable to such illicit
traffic.
14. Further, the “illicit traffic” has been defined as under Section 2(e) of
the Act, 1988 which reads hereunder as: –
“2. (e) “illicit traffic”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, means-
(i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant;
(ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant;
(iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase,
transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import
inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or
transhipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances;
(iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
other than those provided in sub-clauses (i) to (iii); or
(v) handling or letting any premises for the carrying on of any of the
activities referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv),other than those permitted under the Naroctic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) or any rule or order made, or any
condition of any licence, term or authorisation issued, thereunder and
includes-
(1) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the aforementioned activities:
(2) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance of or in support of doing any
of the aforementioned activities; and
(3) harbouring persons engaged in any of the aforementioned activities:”
15. Hence, Section 3 of the Act, 1988 provides power to make order
detaining certain persons wherefrom it is evident that the competent authority
if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view
to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that
14
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
such person be detained. But, for the purpose of clause (5) of Article 22 of the
Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a
detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be
made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five
days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in
writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention.
16. Further, Section 9 of the Act, 1988 provides constitution of an Advisory
Board with an intent to achieve the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4)
and subclause (c) of clause (7) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India with
the conferment of power upon the Advisory Board that if any reference has
been made and the materials placed before it and after calling for such further
information as it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or
from any person, called for the purpose through the appropriate Government
or from the person concerned, and if, in any particular case, it considers it
essential so to do or if the person concerned desires to be heard in person, after
hearing him in person, prepare its report specifying in a separate paragraph
thereof its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the
detention of the person concerned and submit the same within eleven weeks
from the date of detention of the person concerned.
17. The maximum period of detention has been provided under Section 11
of the Act, 1988 and as provided therein any person may be detained in
pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 10 do not
apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9 shall be one
year from the date of detention, and the maximum period for which any person
may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions
of section 10 apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section
15
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
9, read with sub-section (2) of section 10, shall be two years from the date of
detention.
18. It is 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 hereinabove.
Re: Issue No.(I)
19. Regarding issue no. (I), i.e. whether the grant of bail to the petitioner
in pending cases and acquittal in some cases, registered under the NDPS Act,
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? the petitioner has raised ground that
petitioner is already on bail or has been acquitted by the Court of law, in the
NDPS cases registered against him and the said cases were relied by the
detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention dated
15.01.2026 and, hence, detention order cannot be sustained.
20. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, it is admitted case
that the order of detention was passed on 15.01.2026 and petitioner was
detained on 30.01.2026 and after confirmation by the Advisory Board, the
detention order dated 15.01.2026 was confirmed and under section 11 of the
Act, petitioner was ordered to be detained for a period of one year from his
date of detention, i.e., 30.01.2026.
21. This court, from perusal of record, finds that in the proposal submitted
by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, vide letter No. 1517 dated 22.12.2025,
to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster
Management, Jharkhand, for detention of the petitioner, there is inter alia
reference of four NDPS cases registered against the petitioner, i.e,
16
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 10/2014 dated 03.02.2014; Bashishthnagar P.S.
Case no. 79/2018 dated 21.11.2018; Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021
dated 24.05.2021 and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025 dated 19.01.2025.
22. In Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 10/2014 and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case
no. 79/2018, petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court by order
dated 17.01.2026 and 03.02.2026 respectively. Further, in Bashishthnagar
P.S. Case no. 51/2021 and in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025, petitioner
has been enlarged on bail by order dated 10.09.2025 and 11.06.2025
respectively.
23. Hence, out of the four NDPS cases registered against the petitioner,
petitioner has been acquitted in two cases and he has been enlarged on bail in
two cases.
24. In the present case, from the ground of detention communicated to
the petitioner, it is apparent that in the pending case, i.e., Bashishthnagar
P.S. Case no. 51/2021, petitioner is involved in recovery of 200 kg of
poppy straw and in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025, allegation against
the petitioner is of opium cultivation in the forest area.
25. From, ground of detention, it also appears that out of the two pending
cases registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act, oldest case
registered against the petitioner was in the year 2021 being Bashishthnagar
P.S. Case no. 51/2021 concerning in recovery of 200 kg of poppy straw.
Thereafter, petitioner did not repent and again after four years in 2025,
petitioner was found indulge in poppy cultivation in the forest area and for
this Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025, was registered against him.
26. Hence, so far as release of the petitioner on bail, in the two pending
cases, i.e., Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021 and in Bashishthnagar
17
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
P.S. Case no. 5/2025, registered under the NDPS Act 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 had passed an impugned order detaining him under
the Act,1988.
27. Further, 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.
28. Since the detention order is to be passed by the competent authority
anticipating the criminality of the concerned and it would be evident from
the accusation made in the ground of detention communicated to the
petitioner vide memo no. 122 dated 15.01.2026, (Annexure-1) passed by
the Respondent no. 2-Additional Principal Secretary, Department of
Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, wherein inter alia aforesaid two pending NDPS cases registered
against the petitioner under the NDPS Act is mentioned.
29. 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
18
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
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 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” 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
19
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
by resorting to normal procedure, the detaining authority passed an
order detaining him under Act 12 of 1985.”
30. Further, regarding acquittal of the petitioner in two NDPS cases, this
Court finds that the impugned detention order is dated 15.01.2026 and
subsequently petitioner was acquitted in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no.
10/2014 and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 79/2018, by the learned Trial
Court by order dated 17.01.2026 and 03.02.2026 respectively. Hence, on
the date of passing of the impugned detention order dated 15.01.2026,
petitioner was not acquitted from the said charges.
31. Therefore, the authority concerned while passing the impugned
detention order which was passed on 15.01.2026 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.
32. Thus, from the impugned detention order dated 15.01.2026
(Annexure-1), 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 to conclusion that the well-organized manner in which such pre-
judicial activities have been carried on and nexus between dates of
incidents and passing of the detention order 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)
20
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
therefore, the said observation of the detaining authority cannot be said to
be suffer from an error.
33. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the Khudiram
Das v. State of West Bengal(supra), and has submitted that satisfaction
recorded by the detaining authority is based on incomplete and irrelevant
material as acquittal dated 17.01.2026 and 03.02.2026 passed in
Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 10/2014 and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no.
79/2018 respectively, being vital and proximate development was not
considered.
34. But, judgment of Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal(supra), is
not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case as
impugned detention order is dated 15.01.2026 and subsequently petitioner
was acquitted in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 10/2014, by order dated
17.01.2026 and in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 79/2018, by order dated
03.02.2026, hence, at the time of passing of the impugned detention order,
petitioner was not acquitted of the charges.
35. Accordingly, Issue No.I has been answered herein.
Re: Issue No. (II)
36. Regarding the second issue i.e. whether there is violation of section
3(3) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1988 in communicating ground of detention to the
petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
impugned detention order has been passed on 15.01.2026, but the ground
of detention was communicated the petitioner on 30.01.2026.
37. Section 3(3) of the Act,1988 provides that for the purpose of clause
(5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person
21
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
detained in pursuance of a detention order, the grounds on which the order
has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but
ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and
for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the
date of detention.
38. Thus, as per statutory provision, enumerated in section 3(3) of the
Act,1988, time for communicating the ground of detention to the detenue
commences from the date when detenue is taken in detention and it shall
be communicated to the detenue within five days from the date of detention
and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing,
not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. However, even under
exceptional circumstances, the communication shall not be made later than
fifteen days from the date of detention.
39. The “grounds of detention” communicated under Section 3(3) must
include all the basic facts, material documents, and statements relied upon
by the detaining authority to reach its subjective satisfaction. The scope of
this communication is to enable the detenu to make an effective,
purposeful, and timely representation to the competent authorities and the
Advisory Board. If the relevant materials or legible copies of the
documents relied upon are not supplied within the stipulated period, the
detenu’s right to make an effective representation is frustrated, rendering
the detention illegal.
40. The provision serves as a vital check and balance. While the Act,
1988, grants the executive extraordinary powers of preventive detention to
combat the menace of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, Section 3(3) ensures constitutional accountability. The
22
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, while generally afforded
judicial deference, is subject to strict judicial scrutiny regarding adherence
to these procedural safeguards. Any lapse in compliance with the statutory
timelines results in the infringement of the detenu’s personal liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, leading to the quashing of the
detention order.
41. In the instant writ petition, petitioner has admitted that detention
order was served upon him on 30.01.2026, while he was lodged on Chatera
Jail in connection with Kunda P.S. Case no. 01/2001corropponding to S.T.
No. 380/2018.
42. Hence, in the present case petitioner was detained under the
impugned order on 30.01.2026 and on the same day i.e. on 30.01.2026
ground of detention was communicated to the petitioner, which is within
five days as per statutory mandate provided under Section 3(3) of the
Act,1988 and such communication falls well within the statutory period of
five days as mandated under Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988, and this fact
stands substantiated by Annexure-E filed on behalf of the
respondent/State.
43. Hence, there is no violation of section 3(3) of the Prevention of Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 in
communicating ground of detention to the petitioner.
44. Accordingly, issue no. (II) has been answered.
45. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 6 of the
Act,1988, has no application to the facts of the present case and in this
regard learned counsel has cited judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench
23
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
of this Court in case of Charitra Kumar Dangi @ Chalitar Dangi V. State
of Jharkhand” (supra).
46. In this regard, this Court finds that Section 6 of the Act,1988, deals
with the situation when grounds of detention are severable. Section 6
provided that where a person has been detained on two or more grounds,
such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on
each of such grounds and such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or
inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds are vague, non-
existent, not relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with
such person, or invalid for any other reason whatsoever. It will be deemed
that if one of the ground falls within the aforesaid categories, then it shall
be deemed that the order of the detention is passed in reference to the
remaining ground.
47. Thus, the statutory text stipulates that if a person has been detained
under a preventive detention order issued pursuant to sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act, and such an order has been made on two
or more grounds, the order of detention is to be treated as having been
made separately on each of those grounds.
48. In ordinary administrative law, if an order is based on subjective
satisfaction arising from multiple grounds, the invalidity of one ground can
strike down the entire order because a court cannot easily determine if the
authority would have reached the same satisfaction based on the surviving
grounds alone. Section 6 creates a statutory exception to this rule. It
ensures that a preventive detention order under Section 3(1) does not
automatically fail in its entirety if one or more of the multiple grounds cited
are found to be defective, vague, irrelevant, or non-existent. Thus, Section
24
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
6 supports the legislative intent by allowing the detention to stand on any
remaining sound grounds, thereby preventing the release of individuals
involved in drug trafficking due to technical defects in some of the stated
reasons.
49. In the preceding paragraph it has already been discussed that two
cases, i.e., in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021 and in Bashishthnagar
P.S. Case no. 5/2025, registered under the NDPS Act are pending against
the petitioner. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that
Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021, is related to recovery of 200 KG of
Poppy Straw and the case is in Evidence stage and Bashishthnagar P.S.
Case no. 5/2025, which is related to Opium Cultivation, Charge sheet has
been submitted.
50. In the present case detaining authority has noted in impugned
detention order that it is necessary to detain the petitioner to forbade him
from indulging in smuggling/illegal production of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances in future. Hence, in the present case ground of
detention is based on relevant and cogent material, which cannot be
discarded.
51. The fact of the judgment of the case passed by co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Charitra Kumar Dangi @ Chalitar Dangi V. State of
Jharkhand [ W.P(Cr.) No.557 of 2024], which is being relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, was that four cases were mentioned in
the detention order against the detenue out of which three cases were
related to NDPS Act and one case was related to offences under IPC. The
co-ordinate Bench of this Court had noted that detenue was acquitted in
the three cases related to NDPS Act and in the case related the offences
25
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
under the IPC, detenue was convicted under section 147,148,332,324,427
and 504 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment by
the learned Trial Court. But, the Appellate Court had modified the
judgment and had convicted him under Section 323,353 and 149 of IPC
and released him after due admonition as per provision of the Probation of
the Offenders Act.
52. Hence, a co-ordinate Bench noted that detention order was based on
incomplete materials and the basis of satisfaction was incomplete and there
was only one ground of detention, there is no applicability of section 6 of
the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1988.
53. But, in the present case two cases, i.e., Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no.
51/2021, relating to recovery of 200 KG of Poppy Straw and
Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025, concerning Opium Cultivation,
registered under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner.
54. Hence, in the present case, ground of detention is based on relevant
and cogent material, which is not vague, therefore, impugned order of
detention said to be validly passed by taking the unambiguous ground.
55. Further, Judgment of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu(supra) relied on
by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the
present case as in the present case though petitioner has been acquitted in
two NDPS cases registered against him, but, even then also two cases, i.e,
Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021 and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no.
5/2025, which are also registered under the NDPS Act against the
petitioner are pending. Hence, satisfaction has been arrived by the
26
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
detaining authority bearing in mind existence of live and proximate link
between the past conduct of a petitioner and material which is not stale.
56. So far as question of applicability of the ratio rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana
and others, (supra) is concerned, it is evident that in the said case the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a Constitutional Court when called upon
to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to
examine whether 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 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. For ready reference the relevant
paragraph is being quoted herein which reads as under:
“27. Be that as it may, culling out the principles of law flowing
from all the relevant decisions in the field, our understanding
of the law for deciding the legality of an order of preventive
detention is that even without appropriate pleadings to assail
such an order, if circumstances appear therefrom raising a
doubt of the detaining authority misconceiving his own
powers, the Court ought not to shut its eyes; even not venturing
to make any attempt to investigate the sufficiency of the
materials, an enquiry can be made by the Court into the
authority’s notions of his power. Without being remotely
concerned about the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials
on which detention has been ordered, the Court would be
justified to draw a conclusion, on proof from the order itself,
that the detaining authority failed to realise the extent of his
own powers. This is quite apart from questioning the action
for want of sufficient materials that were before the detaining
authority. The authority for the detention is the order of
detention itself, which the detenu or the Court can read. Such
a reading of the order would disclose the manner in which the27
2026:JHHC:21721-DBactivity of the detenu was viewed by the detaining authority to
be prejudicial to maintenance of public order and what exactly
he intended should not be permitted to happen. Any order of a
detaining authority evincing that the same runs beyond his
powers, as are actually conferred, would not amount to a valid
order made under the governing preventive detention law and
be vulnerable on a challenge being laid.
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
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;
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
28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction
is/are such which an individual, with some degree of28
2026:JHHC:21721-DBrationality 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; and
28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law, have been
strictly adhered to.”
57. There is no dispute as to the settled position of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court. Applying the said guidelines to the facts of the
present case, this Court finds that it is apparent from the impugned order
that the detention order has been passed by the competent authority on the
basis of anticipated criminality of the petitioner. This is evident from the
accusations set forth in the grounds of detention communicated to the
petitioner vide Memo No. 122 dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure-1), issued by
Respondent No. 2, the Additional Principal Secretary, Department of
Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, wherein, inter alia, reference is made to the two pending NDPS
cases registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act.
58. It is, thus, clear that the authority concerned has duly considered the
material available on record and has passed the impugned detention order
based upon its subjective satisfaction. In reaching such satisfaction, the
detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances,
without reliance upon any extraneous material beyond the scope and
purpose of the statute. Accordingly, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court stands fully complied with herein.
29
2026:JHHC:21721-DB
59. On the basis of discussions made hereinabove, this Court, therefore,
is of the view that the impugned order of detention needs no interference.
60. Accordingly, the detention order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the
Respondent No.2, are hereby sustained and upheld.
61. The instant writ petition stands dismissed.
62. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Sudhir
Dated:21/07/2026
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
Uploaded on 22/07/2026
30
