Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Mishra @ Himanshu Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Under … on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (Cr.) (DB) No.39 of 2026
Prakash Mishra @ Himanshu Kumar, aged about 37 years, son of Lakshmi
Narayan Mishra, resident of H. No.135, Mishra Bagan, Jemco Colony, P.O-
Telco, PS-Telco, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prison
and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Bhawan, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, having
its office at Sakshi, PO-Sakshi, P.S-Sakshi, District-East Singhbhum
(Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum having its office at
Sakshi, PO-Sakshi, P.S-Sakshi, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, East Singhbhum, having its office
at Sakshi, PO-Sakshi, P.S-Sakshi, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
................ Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp-State of Jharkhand: Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II
-------
C.A.V on 17.04.2026 Pronounced on 24/04/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed initially under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly
a writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 28.11.2025
(Annexure-4) contained in Memo No. 411/CCA, issued under the
signature of the Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and
Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the
detention order dated 17.11.2025, contained in Memo No. 729(A)
issued by the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, has
been confirmed.
(ii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction for
quashing the order dated 17.11.2025, contained in Memo No.729(A)1
2026:JHHC:12133-DB(Annexure-3), issued under the signature of the District Magistrate-
cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention
in purported exercise of powers under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand
Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
(iii) For any other appropriate writ, order or direction as your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”
2. Thereafter, an amended writ petition has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner by way of an interlocutory application being I.A No.3002 of
2026 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2026 and
the following prayers have been made in the said amended petition:
“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly
a writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 28.11.2025
(Annexure-4) contained in Memo No. 411/CCA, issued under the
signature of the Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and
Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the
detention order dated 17.11.2025, contained in Memo No. 729(A)
issued by the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, has
been confirmed).
(ii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction for
quashing the order dated 17.11.2025, contained in Memo No.729(A)
(Annexure-3), issued under the signature of the District Magistrate-
cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, whereby and
whereunder the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention
in purported exercise of powers under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand
Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
(iii) For any other appropriate writ, order or direction as your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for
quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure-5)
issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, whereby the detention order dated 17.11.2025 has been
confirmed in purported exercise of the powers under Section 21(1) and
22 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
(v) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for
quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure-6)
issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Government of
2
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
Jharkhand, whereby the detention order has been further extended for
the period from 17.02.2026 to 16.05.2026 in purported exercise of
powers under Sections 21(1) and 22 of the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act, 2002.”
Factual Aspect:
3. The factual aspect which has been pleaded in the writ petition are
as follows:
i. The petitioner is a convict and is serving sentence at Birsa Munda
Central Jail, Ranchi in connection with Telco P.S Case No.562 of
2013.
ii. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum
(respondent no.4) vide Memo No.2782/25 dated
11.11.2025(Annexure-1), addressed to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (respondent no.3)
recommended initiation of preventive action against the petitioner
under Sections 12(ii) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002
(hereinafter, to be referred as Act of 2002) purportedly to maintain
public peace and law and order.
iii. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum
(respondent no.3) vide Memo No.1530 dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-
2), addressed to the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner,
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (respondent no.2) recommended
initiation of preventive action against the petitioner under Sections
12(1) and 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002,
purportedly to maintain public peace and law and order.
iv. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum, vide Memo No. 729(A) dated 17.11.2025(Annexure-3),
3
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
passed an order of preventive detention against the petitioner for
twelve days from the date of issuance of the order, subject to
confirmation by the State Government within the said period. It was
further directed that upon such confirmation by the Home
Department, Government of Jharkhand, the period of detention
would stand extended for a further period of three months.
v. Thereafter, the respondent no.1-Under Secretary, Department of
Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand,
vide an order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure-4), contained in Memo
No. 411/CCA, has confirmed the order of preventive detention
passed against the petitioner vide order dated 17.11.2025.
vi. In its recommendation dated 11.11.2025(Annexure-1), by
Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum (respondent no.4)
it has been stated that the petitioner is a convict in connection with
Telco P.S. Case No. 562 of 2013 and is serving sentence in Hotwar
Central Jail, Ranchi. But, prior to the said recommendation, the
petitioner had already been acquitted by this Hon’ble Court in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1158 of 2019, vide judgment and order
dated 03.11.2025.
vii. Total 23 cases have been mentioned in the said recommendation
dated 11.11.2025(Annexure-1), out of which 10 cases are stated to
be registered, while 13 cases are merely shown as Sanha entries
recorded at the respective police stations.
viii. Insofar as the registered cases are concerned, the petitioner has
been acquitted in four cases, he has been granted bail in five other
cases, and one case is presently pending before this Hon’ble Court for
consideration of the prayer for bail. However, neither the
4
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
recommendation nor the impugned detention order discloses or
reflects the status of the said cases against the petitioner, rendering
the decision-making process arbitrary and non-application of mind.
ix. So far as the station diary entries are concerned, the same have
not culminated in the registration of any First Information Report.
x. The petitioner is not roaming freely, but has been behind bars for
more than a decade. Therefore, the allegation of commission of
crimes while in jail custody is wholly improbable, untenable, and
contrary to the record.
xi. The petitioner has been behind bars for almost a decade. There
is no likelihood that his release would cause any terror in the minds
of the people of Jamshedpur. The petitioner cannot be termed an anti-
social element within the meaning of Section 2(d) of Jharkhand
Control of Crimes Act.
xii. Subsequent to filing of the present writ petition, the Under
Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, has passed an order dated
31.12.2025 affirming the detention order dated 17.11.2025 in
purported exercise of the powers under Section 21(1) and 22 of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
xiii. The Under Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, has issued an
order dated 02.02.2026, by which the detention order has been further
extended for the period from 17.02.2026 to 16.05.2026 in purported
exercise of powers under Sections 21(1) and 22 of the Jharkhand
Control of Crimes Act, 2002, which is ex facie illegal and
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
5
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of detention, its
confirmation and order of extension of the said detention, the present writ
petition has been preferred.
Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner:
5. Mr. Rishav Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the
impugned order:
i. It has been contended that the petitioner is absolutely innocent
and an orchestrated attempt has been made by the State
authorities to keep the petitioner behind the bars. In the
recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, East
Singhbhum, to pass the detention order and the impugned
detention order passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, which was thereafter,
confirmed by the Respondent No.1-Under Secretary,
Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management,
Government of Jharkhand, there is no independent application of
mind with respect to the status of the criminal cases cited in the
recommendation dated 11.11.2025(Annexure-2) by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum.
ii. It has been contended that in the initial recommendation of
Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 11.11.2025(Annexure-1),
there is reference of Telco PS Case No.562 of 2013, in which
petitioner was convicted and imprisoned for life. But, by order
dated 03.11.2015, passed in the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1158 of
2019, petitioner has been acquitted, however, Telco PS Case
6
2026:JHHC:12133-DBNo.562 of 2013, had been recommended for passing the
detention order. Hence, there was no application of mind by the
detaining authority.
iii. It has been contended that, it is a case where the detaining
authority cannot be said to have the subjective satisfaction,
rather, in absence of the material having not been perused since
it was not placed before the District Authority, hence, there is
lack of subjective satisfaction.
iv. It has been further contended that authorities did not inform and
did not provide the petitioner opportunity of his right of
representation before passing the impugned orders and hence,
there is lack of subjective satisfaction in passing the impugned
orders.
v. It is stated that no sufficient ground, as appearing in the order
dated 31.12.2025(Annexure-5), is made out and the same is
vitiated, inasmuch as from the initial recommendation of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, up to passing of the detention order,
there was complete non-verification of facts with regard to the
cases pending against the petitioner, and all the orders have been
passed without independent application of mind and without
recording self-sufficient and self-explanatory reasons.
vi. At no stage did any authority examine whether the said cases
were pending, disposed of, or otherwise relevant. Such
mechanical approval, without due verification of material facts,
clearly demonstrates mala fide intent, arbitrariness, and high-
7
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
handedness on the part of the State authorities in passing the
impugned orders.
vii. It has been contended that out of 23 cases as has been mentioned
in the recommendation, only 10 cases were registered while 13
cases are merely shown as Sanha entries recorded at the
respective police stations. Out of them, the petitioner has been
acquitted in four cases being Telco PS Case No.297 of 2012,
Telco PS Case No.562 of 2013, Golmuri PS Case No.313 of 2013
and Telco P.S Case No.71 of 2014 whereas he has been granted
bail in five cases mentioned being Golmuri P.S Case No.133 of
2024, Telco P.S Case No.96 of 2024, Golmuri P.S Case No.157
of 2024, Birsanangar P.S Case No.88 of 2024 and Birsanagar P.S
Case No.93 of 2024, but this fact has been ignored by the
detaining authority.
viii. It has been contended that the act of the respondents in passing
the impugned order under the provisions of section 12(2) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 has not taken into
consideration that mere registration of police case under several
sections, is not sufficient to take away the freedom of the
petitioner who is behind the bar since a decade.
ix. It has been contended that according to the provision under
section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, it is
mandatory to record the reason in writing for which it is
necessary to extend the detention of the detenu and the same is
evidentially missing in the present case. As such, the order of
8
2026:JHHC:12133-DBdetention has been passed without following the due
procedure of law.
x. It has been contended that when the general provisions of law are
adequate to address the alleged situation, there was no
justification for taking shelter to the extraordinary provisions of
Section 12 of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. The State,
instead of availing other lawful remedy, has resorted to the
drastic measure of preventive detention, thereby curtailing the
personal liberty of the petitioner.
xi. It has been contended that respondents have passed the impugned
detention order under the provisions of section 12(2) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, without subjective
satisfaction and a mere reference to criminal cases registered
against the petitioner, without any independent analysis or
assessment of their relevance to public order, demonstrates a
non-application of mind.
xii. It has further been contended that the impugned order gives
absolutely no finding with respect to the petitioner being an anti-
social element.
xiii. It has been contended that the petitioner is behind the bars for
almost a decade and he cannot be termed an anti-social element
within the meaning of Section 2(d) of Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act.
xiv. It has been further contended that the station diary entries
disclosed the commission of any cognizable offence, it remains
9
2026:JHHC:12133-DBunexplained as to why the State authorities failed to register First
Information Report in accordance with law.
xv. It has been contended that the detention order is based upon non-
application of mind by detaining authority as it acted
mechanically under a delegated power in violation of the settled
law as laid down in the case of Mallada K. Sri Ram V. State of
Telangana and Ors, (2023) 13 SSC 537.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, based upon
the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order, therefore,
needs interference by this Court.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:
7. Per contra, Mr. Gaurav Raj, the learned State counsel appearing
for the respondent-State to defend the impugned orders has raised the
following grounds:
i. It has been contended that the impugned detention order is
issued under the provision of section 12(2) of Jharkhand
Control of Crimes Act, 2002 as the petitioner is a
notorious criminal having many criminal antecedents of
serious nature. The petitioner is a notorious criminal and
his main profession is to collect extortion money from
traders, coaching institutes, transporters and other
contractors and not only that he extorts people of the
locality under fear of life, several cases of arson, damage
to public property, Arms Act, murder etc. due to his
criminal activity have been registered against him and, as
10
2026:JHHC:12133-DBsuch, the present writ petition is not maintainable in the law
as well as on facts.
ii. It has been contended that prior to issuance of detention
order the petitioner has been given reasonable opportunity
to defend himself and, as such, the orders impugned are in
accordance with law which requires no interference.
iii. It has been contended that the petitioner is habitual
offender and he is having total 23 cases out of which 10
cases have been instituted in different police stations under
different Sections of Arms Act and BNS and a number of
Sanhas are also there against the petitioner. As per the
intelligence input received, the petitioner is having deep
root in organized crime and in connivance with his other
associates of his gang and on his instructions, his associates
used to collect extortion from the local people, transporters
and businessman though the petitioner is in judicial
custody. As such, the orders of extension of detention have
been passed and further there is strong possibility of
conviction of the petitioner in the said cases.
iv. It has further been contended that there is possibility that
when the petitioner comes out from the judicial custody he
may involve in the illegal and unlawful activity with his
associates, since, he has been history of antecedent, thus,
the detention order is fully justified in order
to maintain public order within the district concerned.
v. It has been contended that so far as acquittal or granting
bail of the detenue is concerned, it is submitted that is the
11
2026:JHHC:12133-DBsubjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that in
spite of his continuous activities causing threat to
maintenance of public order, the detenu was getting bail
one after another and indulging in the same activities. In
such circumstances, based on the relevant materials and
satisfying itself, it would not be possible to control his
habituality in continuing the criminal activities by resorting
the normal procedures, the Detaining Authority passed the
detention order against him as per the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “D.M. Nagaraja Vs.
The State of Karnataka & Ors.” reported in AIR 2012 SC
295.
vi. It has been contended that it was necessary to extend
preventive detention of petitioner in order to control
organized crime in the locality as well as in order to reduce
the intensity of same.
vii. It has been contended that at first occasion detention order
was confirmed after obtaining report from Advisory Board
and thereafter on requisition given by the competent
authority the same has been extended for a period of
3 months vide order dated 31.12.2025 from 17.11.2025 to
16.02.2026 in accordance with provision laid down under
section 21(1) and section 22 of Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act, 2002.
viii. It has been further contended that as per maximum
permissible detention under section 22 of the Act, the
continuation of detention to that limit is statutorily
12
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
sanctioned and, hence, the impugned detention order was
lastly extended vide order dated 02.02.2026 for a period of
3 months from 17.02.2026 to 16.05.2026.
8. The learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that the impugned orders, thus, need no interference and the
present writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis:
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition along with the
relevant documents annexed therewith.
10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect the following
issues require consideration herein:
i.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?
ii.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
can it be said that the authorities have got the subjective
satisfaction while passing the order of detention?
iii.Whether acquittal and grant of bail to the
detenue/petitioner in some cases is ground for his release
from the preventive detention passed under 12(2) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002?
Re: issue no.(i):
11. But, before considering the first issues, the statutory provision
as contained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act,2002 needs to be
referred herein.
13
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
12. The relevant provisions which require consideration herein are
Section 2(d) and Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes, 2002,
(referred herein as Act of 2002).
13. “Anti-social Element” has been defined in section 2(d) of the Act
of 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
(v)who has been convicted of an offence under sections 25,26, 27,
28 or 29 of the Arms Act of 1959.”
14. From perusal of Section 2(d) of the Act of 2002, it is evident that
“anti-social element” is a person who habitually commits or abets offenses
listed in Chapters XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or certain other
specific crimes. It needs to refer herein that this definition requires a
pattern of behaviour, not isolated incidents, and aims to identify
individuals whose acts cause alarm or terror among the public, warranting
preventive detention to maintain public order.
15. It requires to refer herein that the Act of 2002 was meant to make
special provisions for the control and suppression of anti-social elements
14
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
with a view to maintenance of public order. It also needs to refer herein
that the “Law and Order” problems typically affect only individuals or
small groups, whereas “public order” disruptions affect the community’s
normal functioning on a broader scale often generating fear or anxiety
among the general public.
16. It is pertinent to mention herein that the primary element with
respect to Section 2(d)(i) of the Act of 2002 seems to be the word
“habitual”. It would thus mean that a person who is frequently engaged in
committing or attempting or abating commission of an offence in terms of
Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code would be an anti-
social element. In this context, we may refer to the case of Vijay Narayan
Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1984) 3 SCC 14 wherein the word
“habitually” has been sought to be enumerated in the following manner:
“31. It is seen from Section 12 of the Act that it makes
provision for the detention of an anti-social element. If a
person is not an antisocial element, he cannot be detained
under the Act. The detaining authority should, therefore, be
satisfied that the person against whom an order is made
under Section 12 of the Act is an anti-social element as
defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. Sub-clauses (ii), (iii) and
(v) of Section 2(d) of the Act which are not quite relevant for
the purposes of this case may be omitted from consideration
for the present. The two other sub-clauses which need to be
examined closely are sub clauses (i) and (iv) of Section 2(d).
Under sub-clause (i) of Section 2(d) of the Act, a person who
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
dealing with offences affecting the human body or Chapter
XVII dealing with offences against property, of the Penal
Code, 1860 is considered to be an anti-social element. Under
subclause (iv) of Section 2(d) of the Act, a person who has
been habitually passing indecent remarks to, or teasing
15
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
women or girls, is an anti-social element. In both these sub
clauses, the word “habitually” is used. The expression
“habitually” means “repeatedly” or “persistently”. It implies
a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive
acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated,
individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an
inference of habit. It connotes frequent commission of acts or
omissions of the same kind referred to in each of the said sub
clauses or an aggregate of similar acts or omissions. This
appears to be clear from the use of the word “habitually”
separately in subclause (i), sub-clause (ii) and sub- clause
(iv) of Section 2(d) and not in sub clauses (iii) and (v)
of Section 2(d). If the State Legislature had intended that a
commission of two or more acts or omissions referred to in
any of the sub- clauses (i) to (v) of Section 2(d) was sufficient
to make a person an “anti-social element”, the definition
would have run as “Anti-social element” means “a person
who habitually is. ..”. As Section 2(d) of the Act now stands,
whereas under sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (v) of Section
2(d) a single act or omission referred to in them may be
enough to treat the person concerned as an ‘antisocial
element’, in the case of sub-clause (i), sub-clause (ii) or sub-
clause (iv), there should be a repetition of acts or omissions
of the same kind referred to in sub-clause (i), subclause (ii)
or in sub-clause (iv) by the person concerned to treat him as
an “anti-social element”. Commission of an act or omission
referred to in one of the sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) and of
another act or omission referred to in any other of the said
sub-clauses would not be sufficient to treat a person as an
“anti-social element”. A single act or omission falling under
subclause (i) and a single act or omission falling under sub-
clause (iv) of Section 2(d) cannot, therefore, be characterized
as a habitual act or omission referred to in either of them.
Because the idea of “habit” involves an element of persistence
and a tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same
class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of
the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they
are committed with a long interval of time between them they
cannot be treated as habitual ones.”
16
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
17. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that if a person is not an
antisocial element, he cannot be detained under the Act of 2002. The
detaining authority should, therefore, be satisfied that the person against
whom an order is made under Section 12 of the Act of o2022 is an anti-
social element as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. Under sub-clause (i)
of Section 2(d) of the Act, a person who 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 dealing with
offences affecting the human body or Chapter XVII dealing with offences
against property, of the Penal Code, 1860 is considered to be an anti-social
element. Further the expression “habitually” means “repeatedly” or
“persistently”. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar
repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated,
individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit.
18. It requires to refer herein that Section 12 of the Act of 2002
contains the word “anti-social” which qualifies the section 12 of Act 2002
for passing the order of detention of any individual or others. Section 12
of the Act is the initiation of the process of detaining a person under the
Act, for ready reference the same is being quoted herein, 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.
17
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
(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 the words
“twelve days”, the words “fifteen days” shall be substituted.”
19. Thus, from the perusal of Section 12 of the Act of 2002, it is
evident 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.
18
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
20. Hence, section 12(1) of the Act 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 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.
21. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court
is now, reverting to the first 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.
22. On going through the impugned detention order dated
17.11.2025(Annexure-3),wherein involvement of the petitioner in 23
criminal cases is mentioned out of which 10 cases are registered and 13
cases are Sanhas registered in different police stations, this Court finds
that impugned detention order was passed by the respondent no.-2 Deputy
Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, on the recommendations made by the Senior Superintendent
of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide letter no. 1530 dated
13.11.2025 ( Anexure-2).
23. This Court finds from the impugned detention order dated
17.11.2025 (Annexure-3) that the following FIRs and Sanhas have been
registered against the detenue/petitioner in different police stations :
19
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
1. Telco PS Case No.297/12 dated 18.09.12 under sections
147/148/149/304 IPC and under sections 27 of the Arms Act;
2. Telco PS Case No.562/13 dated 11.12.13 under
sections 302/303/120(B)/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms
Act;
3. Golmuri PS Case No.313/13 dated 12.12.13 under sections 25
(1-B) a/26/35 of Arms Act;
4. Telco PS Case No.71/14 dated 12.02.14 under sections under
sections 25 (1-B) a/26 of Arms Act;
5. Golmuri PS Case No.133/24 dated 03.10.24 under section 27
of the Arms Act;
6. Telco PS Case No.96/24 dated 16.08.24 under sections
109/324(5)/3(5) BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act;
7. Kanke PS Case No.283/24 dated 29.09.24 under sections
308(3)/308(4)/111(4)/111(5)/238 of BNS;
8. Golmuri PS Case No.157/24 under sections 308(4),
308(5)/111(3)/317(2)/305 of BNS and under sections 25 (1-B) a/26
of Arms Act ;
9. Birsanagar PS Case No.88/24 dated 10.09.24 under sections
109 BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act;
10. Birsanangar PS Case No.93/24 dated 16.09.24 under sections
308(3)/308(4)/61(2) of BNS;
11. Telco PS Sanha No.28/25, dated 29.06.25;
12. Telco PS Sanha No.12/25 dated 02.06.25;
13. Telco PS Sanha No.33/25, dated 09.10.25;
14. Telco PS Diary Entry No.25/25, dated 14.10.25;
15. Telco PS Diary Entry No.13/25, dated 24.10.25;
16. Telco PS Diary Entry No.23/25, dated 04.11.25;
17. Golmuri PS Sanha No.17/25, dated 28.10.25;
18. Golmuri PS Sanha No.14/25, dated 05.11.25;
19. Barma Mines P.S Sanha No.35/25, dated 16.10.25;
20. Barma mines P.S Sanha No.06/25, dated 21.10.25;
21. Barma Mines P.S Sanha No.26/25, dated 04.11.25;
20
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
22. Birsa Nagar P.S Sanha No.24/25, dated 03.11.25;
23. Birsa Nagar P.S Sanha No.25/25, dated 05.11.25.
24. Hence, from the FIRs and Sanhas mentioned in the impugned
detention order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3), this Court finds that 10
FIRs were registered against the detenue/petitioner in addition to 13
Sanhas in different police stations. Though, detenue/ petitioner has been
acquitted in four cases – Telco PS Case No.297/12 dated 18.09.12; Telco
PS Case No.562/13 dated 11.12.13; Golmuri PS Case No.313/13 dated
12.12.13 and Telco PS Case No.71/14 dated 12.02.14.
25. But, on perusal of the six pending cases registered against the
detenue/petitioner, as mentioned in the impugned detention order, it is
apparent that the crime committed by the detenue/petitioner ranges to
murder, attempt to murder, extortion etc. and cases under Arms Act have
also been registered against the petitioner.
26. Hence, this Court is of the view that detenue/petitioner is a
habitual offender. Detenue/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.
27. Further, the detaining authority respondent no.2 while passing
the detention order 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3), under section 12(2) of the
Act of 2002, was satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was
necessary as continuous criminal activities of the petitioner was causing
threat to maintenance of public order.
28. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid factual aspect, is of
the view that the authority concerned has rightly considered that the act of
the detenue/petitioner comes under the purview of the “Anti-social
21
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
Elements” as stipulated under Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act, 2002. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the orders of
detention on this score need no interference.
29. Accordingly issue no. (i) is hereby answered.
Re: issue no. (ii):
30. Regarding this issue, i.e., whether in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, can it be said that the authorities have got the
subjective satisfaction while passing the order of detention?
31. Learned counsel for the detenue/petitioner has submitted that out
of the 10 cases registered against the petitioner, detenue has been acquitted
in four cases being Telco PS Case No.297 of 2012, Telco PS Case No.562
of 2013, Golmuri PS Case No.313 of 2013 and Telco P.S Case No.71 of
2014 and in the remaining cases except one, detenue has been enlarged on
bail. But, these materials were not placed before the detaining authority
and, hence, it cannot be said that detaining authority had subjective
satisfaction before passing the impugned detention order.
32. 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:22
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
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
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.”
23
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
33. 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.
34. In the present case, ongoing to the impugned detention order,
passed by the detaining authority Respondent No. 2 vide Memo No.
729(A) dated 17.11.2025(Anneure-3), the sequence of criminal cases
registered against the detenue are as follows:
1.Telco PS Case No.297/12 dated 18.09.12 under sections 147/148/149/304
IPC and under sections 27 of the Arms Act;
2.Telco PS Case No.562/13 dated 11.12.13 under sections
302/303/120(B)/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act;
3.Golmuri PS Case No.313/13 dated 12.12.13 under sections 25 (1-B)
a/26/35 of Arms Act;
4.Telco PS Case No.71/14 dated 12.02.14 under sections under sections 25
(1-B) a/26 of Arms Act;
5.Golmuri PS Case No.133/24 dated 03.10.24 under section 27 of the Arms
Act;
6.Telco PS Case No.96/24 dated 16.08.24 under sections 109/324(5)/3(5)
BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act;
7.Kanke PS Case No.283/24 dated 29.09.24 under sections
308(3)/308(4)/111(4)/111(5)/238 of BNS;
24
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
8.Golmuri PS Case No.157/24 under sections 308(4),
308(5)/111(3)/317(2)/305 of BNS and under sections 25 (1-B) a/26 of Arms
Act ;
9.Birsanagar PS Case No.88/24 dated 10.09.24 under sections 109 BNS and
Section 27 of Arms Act;
10.Birsanangar PS Case No.93/24 dated 16.09.24 under sections
308(3)/308(4)/61(2) of BNS;
35. In the present case, it is not in dispute that in Telco PS Case
No.562 of 2013, the detenue/petitioner was inter alia convicted under
section 302 of IPC, but, was acquitted by order dated 03.11.2015 passed
in the Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1158 of 2019 and in three cases – Telco PS
Case No.297 of 2012, Golmuri PS Case No.313 of 2013 and Telco P.S
Case No.71 of 2014, the detenue/petitioner was acquitted.
36. Herein the allegations alleged against the petitioner in the present
case for the purposes of detention, which is mentioned in the
recommendation of the respondent no. 3-Senior Superintendent of
Police, East Singhbhum, is that the detenue/petitioner is an antisocial
notorious criminal, allegedly involved in offences of murder, kidnapping
and extortion of money from contractors, businessmen and transporters by
firing bullets and spreading terror in the area. The detenue/ petitioner has
made an organized gang by using mobile from the jail and using Whatsapp
and internet call and with aid of his henchman, detenue/ petitioner
commits extortion of money from businessman, in the area of Jamshedpur.
Further, the respondent-authority has also taken into consideration the fact
that after receiving news of his release from jail, atmosphere of fear and
resentment has been created among the businessmen and contractors of
the area, giving rise to a likelihood of disturbance of law and order and
public order.
25
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
37. Further, this Court has gone through 13 Sanhas registered against
the detenue/petitioner mentioned in the impugned detention order. On
perusal of these Sanhas, this Court finds that specific allegation has been
made in Sanhas that the detenue/petitioner, who is confined in Hotwar
Jail, with aid of his henchmen used to threaten transporters, contractors,
businessman for extortion od money and due to fear, no one comes
forward to register complaint against the detenue/petitioner.
38. In the present case, the authority concerned while passing the
impugned detention order which was passed on 17.11.2025(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.
39. Hence, acquittal of the detenue/petitioner in four criminal cases
out of the ten cases registered against him, does not dilute the crimes
committed by the detenue/petitioner and hence, it cannot be said that
detaining authority had no subjective satisfaction, while passing the
impugned detention order.
40. In the present case, the factual aspect as has been dealt with
hereinabove while deciding the issue, this Court is of view that the
detaining authority has taken into consideration the fact in entirety which
shows the subjective satisfaction based upon the document as found to be
available with the recommending authority which has been accepted by
the detaining authority.
41. Further, the, satisfaction has been arrived by the detaining
26
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
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).
42. Accordingly issue no. (ii) is hereby answered.
Re: issue no.(iii):
43. Regarding this issue, i.e., whether acquittal and grant of bail to
the detenue/petitioner in some cases is ground for his release from the
prevention detention passed under 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act, 2002?
44. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
detenue/petitioner has been acquitted in four cases and in remaining cases
he has been enlarged on bail and the said cases were relied by the detaining
authority while passing the impugned order of detention dated 17.11.2025
(Annexure-3) and hence, detention order cannot be sustained.
45. This Court finds that in the impugned detention order dated
17.11.2025 (Annexure-3), there is reference of 23 criminal cases against
the detenue/petitioner including the 13 Sanahas.
46. In the aforesaid context, ongoing through the writ petition, this
Court finds that out of 10 criminal cases registered against
detenue/petitioner, he has been acquitted in four cases and six cases are
pending against the petitioner.
47. Hence, so far as acquittal of the detenue/petitioner in some of
the cases and his release on bail, in aforesaid pending cases is concerned,
this Court finds that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
27
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
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 order detaining
him under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
48. Further, enlargement on bail of the detenue/petitioner, in some
of the cases 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 competent authority anticipating the
criminality of the concerned and it would be evident from the accusation
made in the impugned detention order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3),
passed by the Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner-cum-District
Magistrate, East Singhbhum,
49. 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 the 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 the detenue again started indulging in the same type of offences,
particularly, threatening the public life, damaging public property, etc. and
hence, the detenue’s appeal was dismissed. Further in paragraph-20 of the
aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court had noted the subjective
28
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
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” 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 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
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.”
50. In the present case, from the impugned detention order dated
17.11.2025 (Annexure-3), it is apparent that crime committed by the
29
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
detenue/petitioner ranges to attempt to murder, extortion, offences of
organized crime etc. and several cases under the Arms Act a has also been
registered against the petitioner.
51. The detenue/petitioner has also provided tabular chart in his writ
petition, wherein detenue/ petitioner has stated list of criminal cases
registered against him and on perusal, it appears that six cases are still
pending against the detenue/petitioner and all the six cases were registered
against the detenue/petitioner in the year 2024 one after another, but, the
detenue/ petitioner did not remorse his criminality.
52. Even, from the recommendation of the respondent no. 3-Senior
Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, and various Sanahas
registered against the detenue/petitioner, it is apparent that the
detenue/petitioner while confined in jail has made an organized gang by
using mobile from the jail and uses his henchmen to commit extortion of
money from businessmen, contractor in the area of Jamshedpur and out of
fear nobody comes forward to register cases against the detenue/petitioner.
53. The authority concerned while passing the impugned detention
order on 17.11.2025 (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 the petitioner and material which is not stale.
54. Thus, from the impugned detention order dated 17.11.2025
(Annexure-3), it is evident that the detenue/petitioner is habitually
involved in offences which ranges from attempt to murder, extortion,
offences of organized crime etc. and several cases under Arms Act have
30
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
also been registered against the detenue/petitioner 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 laid 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 suffered from
an error.
55. Accordingly, Issue No.(iii) is hereby answered.
56. Learned counsel for the detenue/petitioner has also taken the
point that the authorities concerned did not inform him the grounds of
detention as such the vital right has been denied to him.
57. In order to verify the aforesaid contention, this Court has gone
through the impugned detention order wherefrom it is evident that the
impugned order contained in Memo No. 729(A) dated
17.11.2025(Anexure-3) the copy of the detention order has been served to
the detenue/ petitioner as finds mention in the last page of the impugned
order of detention. Further going through the writ petition, this Court finds
that the detenue/petitioner in his pleading has not pleaded any specific
material facts as to not communicating the ground of detention to him.
58. Hence, this Court is of view that the detenue/petitioner has failed
to prove by any cogent evidence that he was not communicated the ground
of detention and only bald allegation has been levelled against the
authorities concerned.
31
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
59. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, is
of the view that the orders of detention need no interference.
60. Accordingly, the detention order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3)
passed by the respondent no.2 and the order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure-
4) and order dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure-5), passed by the respondent
no.1-Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, confirming the detention order
dated 17.11.2025 and subsequent extension order dated 02.02.2026
(Annexure-6) extending the period of preventive detention requires no
interference by this Court.
61. Consequent thereto, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
62. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Sudhir
Dated: 24/04/2026.
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
Uploaded on 24/04/2026.
32
