The Jharkhand High Court in its recent judgment remarked that “if an individual is arrested solely on the grounds that such action is deemed necessary for the smooth conduct of Assembly Elections, it would essentially grant the administration unchecked, unrestrained power to detain any person under the Act during the election period.”
This, the Court asserted, would constitute a direct infringement on the liberty of citizens. The Court subsequently overturned the order of preventive detention.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, putting him under preventive detention in terms of Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. Further, the petitioner also challenged the order of the Additional Secretary, Govt of Jharkhand, confirming his preventive detention, as well as an order extending the preventive detention from December 4, 2024, to March 3, 2025.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that no case is made out to detain the petitioner under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, and further, the petitioner is neither a habitual offender nor an anti-social element as defined under Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. Further, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner is a threat to society and is a threat to public order. The officials of the District have tried to convert the “law and order” problem to that of “public order” and are thus unnecessarily harassing the petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state submitted that there are criminal cases pending against the petitioner and it was necessary to detain the petitioner because of those criminal cases and Station Diary Entries (Sanha) and further in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that to conduct peaceful assembly elections of the State and also to control the crime rate in the area, it is necessary to keep the petitioner in custody.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the petitioner's criminal history and observed that these cases do not categorize him as an "anti-social" element or habitual offender under the Act. Further the court noted that the petitioner is currently out on bail, and the State had not filed any application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
The court further referred to the argument regarding the station diary and observed that if the acts mentioned in the Station Diary Entries are criminal acts and are cognisable in nature, then why has the state not filed any First Information Report. Further, the law provides that if a cognisable offence is committed and is brought to the knowledge of any authority, a First Information Report should be lodged. The court concluded that the entries in question were made only for the purpose of keeping the petitioner in detention without any basis.
Further rejecting the argument that the detention order was necessary for the proper conduction of elections, the court observed that the liberty of a citizen of our country must be kept on the highest pedestal, and the same cannot be curtailed on the whims and wishes of any of the officials of the State and further not only there has to be a good reason to curtail the said liberty, but that reason has to be strong enough, and the evidence should be impeccable. The court further stated that the election process in the State is already over, and even on the pretext of holding a fair and proper election, the liberty of the citizen cannot be curtailed.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: Ganesh Singh @ Nishant Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No. 926 of 2024
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 10632 Jhar
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Pran Pranay
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, click here
