Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mungeri ... vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 21 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 568 of 2022
--------
Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mungeri Yadav ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant : Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ujjal Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate
Ms. Epil Moushmi Bodra, Advocate
Ms. Aprajita Mallick, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III
--------
Order No. 11/Dated: 21st February 2023
A compilation of judgments prepared on behalf of the
State of Jharkhand has been tendered in the Court by Mr. Manoj
Kumar, the learned GA-III.
2. Taken on record.
3. Just to indicate how the State of Jharkhand is illegally
proceeding in the matter, Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, the learned
counsel for the appellant has referred to the order dated 7 th
February 2023 copy of which has been filed by the State of
Jharkhand along with the supplementary counter-affidavit dated
17th February 2023.
4. Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, the learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the order of detention dated 8 th
August 2022 suffers from non-application of mind and patent
errors of record and, not only that, on merits also the order of
detention is not sustainable for the following reasons:
(i) a detenue has been granted bail in criminal cases is
not a ground to pass an order of detention,
(ii) if the situation contemplated by the detaining
authority can be dealt with under the normal criminal
laws the power to detain a person preventively cannot be
exercised, and
(iii) even if one of the grounds amongst two or more than
two grounds reflected in the order of detention is bad the
order of detention becomes illegal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the
following judgments:
(i) "Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar & Anr." AIR 1966
SC 740,
(ii) "Binod Bihari Mahato v. State of Bihar & Ors." (1975)
3 SCC 328,
(iii) "Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors." (1984)
3 SCC 14,
(iv) "Jai Singh & Ors. v. State of J & K" AIR 1985 SC 764,
(v) "Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah & Ors."
AIR 1986 SC 315,
(vi) "State of Bihar & Anr. v. P. P. Sharma, IAS & Anr."
1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(vii) "Additional Secretary to the Government of India &
Ors. v. Smt Alka Subhash Gadia & Anr." (1992) Supp (1)
SCC 496,
(viii) "Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. C. Anita (Smt)"
(2004) 7 SCC 467,
(ix) "Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to
Government & Anr." (2011) 5 SCC 244,
(x) "N. Sengodan v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary
to Government, Home (Prohibition & Excise) Department,
Chennai & Ors." (2013) 8 SCC 664,
(xi) "Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana & Anr." (2018)
12 SCC 150
(xii) "Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana" (2021)
9 SCC 415, and
(xiii) "Mallada K Sri Ram v. The State of Telangana"
(2022) LiveLaw (SC) 358.
6. Besides the above, the learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the orders passed by the State Government
under section 12(3) and the order rejecting the representation of
the appellant are cryptic and do not disclose any reason. Rather,
an onus has been shifted to the appellant to support the grounds
raised by him in his representation dated 18 th August 2022.
7. The learned Advocate General has commenced the
arguments on behalf the State of Jharkhand taking us first
through the recommendation made by the Sub-Divisional Police
Officer, Sahibganj through his letter of recommendation dated 3 rd
August 2022.
8. In brief, we record that the learned Advocate General
has stressed on the limited powers of the Court to scrutinise the
order of detention inasmuch as the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority is not lightly taken by the Courts and if it is
found that the processes have been followed and the order of
detention is sustainable the Court does not interfere with such
order.
9. For further consideration, post this matter tomorrow
i.e. on 22nd February 2023 under the same heading.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
SB/Nibha/Amit
