[Cites 50, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Aman Singh @ Aman Shekhar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (Cr.) (DB) No.748 of 2025
-----
Aman Singh @ Aman Shekhar, aged about 27 years, son of Anil
Kumar Singh, resident of 34, Nanak Nagar, Tinplate, P.O. & P.S.-
Golmuri, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary having it
office at Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur,
District. - Ranchi.
2. Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prison &
Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, having its
office at Project Bhawan, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S- Jagarnathpur,
District - Ranchi.
3. The District Magistrate -Cum- Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, District
- East Singhbhum.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum,
P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, Town-Jamshedpur, District - East
Singhbhum. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA-III
C.A.V on 19.01.2026 Pronounced on 03/02/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
"a. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.05.2025
(Annexure-2) contained in Memo No. 316(A) passed by the
District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 3) directing the
detention of the petitioner under Section 12(1) & (2) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act for a period of three
months and further passed an order dated 30.07.2025
contained in Memo No. 486(A) (Annexure-3) and further
passed an order dated 30.10.2025 contained in Memo No.
694(A) (Annexure-4) directing the continued detention of
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
the petitioner under Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand
Control of Crimes Act for another three-month period;
AND
b. For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing of order dated 08.07.2025 through Memo No.
05/CCA/01/33/2025-242/CCA (Annexure-5) passed by
the Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and
Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand
(respondent No.2) whereby and whereunder the order of
preventive detention passed u/s 12(2) of the Jharkhand
Control of Crimes Act, 2002 has been confirmed by the
respondent No.2 on behalf of the State Government i.e.,
from 14.05.2025 to 13.08.2025. Further, passed an order
dated 11.08.2025 through Memo No.
05/CCA/01/33/2025-285/CCA (Annexure-6) whereby
and whereunder the order of preventive detention has
been further confirmed for additional three months i.e; from
14.08.2025 to 13.11.2025 and further passed an order
dated 07.11.2025 through Memo No.
05/CCA/01/33/2025/392/CCA (Annexure-7) and
further confirmed the continued detention of the petitioner
for an additional three months, i.e., from 14.11.2025 to
13.02.2026, under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control
of Crimes Act, 2002.
AND
C. Upon quashing the aforesaid orders passed under
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, the petitioner may
be directed to be released immediately in terms of
provisions of law."
Factual Aspect:
2. The factual aspect which has been pleaded in the writ
petition are as follows:
(i) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide letter dated 21.04.2025,
made a recommendation to the Senior Superintendent
of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur that a total of
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
eight cases and five sanhas had been registered against
the petitioner and that he was involved in criminal
activities and considered an anti-social element. It was
apprehended that if the petitioner were to be released on
bail, he would pose a threat to the public. Therefore, in
the interest of maintaining peace and public order, it was
recommended that the petitioner be detained under
Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes
Act,2002(hereafter to be referred as Act,2002).
(ii) Pursuant to the recommendation made by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Senior
Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, vide Letter No. 494/DCB dated
26.04.2025, addressed to the District Magistrate-cum-
Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
recommended that the petitioner, being an anti-social
element, may cause disruption to public peace and
order, and therefore, he should be detained in the
interest of public safety.
(iii) The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner,
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 3),
passed an order vide Memo No. 316(A) dated 14.05.2025
on the basis of the recommendations made by
Respondent No. 4, directing the detention of the
petitioner under Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
Control of Crimes Act for a period of three months.
(iv) The Additional Secretary, Department of Home,
Prison & Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2), vide order dated
08.07.2025 through Memo No. 05/CCA/01/33/2025-
242/CCA, confirmed the order of preventive detention
passed under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act, 2002. Accordingly, the petitioner was
detained for a period of three months.
(v) The Senior Superintendent of Police, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide Letter No. 878/DCB
dated 14.07.2025, addressed the District Magistrate-
cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, informing that the Home, Jail and Disaster
Management Department, Ranchi, vide order dated
11.08.2025 through Memo 05/CCA/01/33/2025-
285/CCA, had extended the petitioner's detention under
the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, for a further
period of three months (from 14.08.2025 to 13.11.2025).
In view of this, it was recommended that the detention
of the petitioner be continued as he may cause
disturbance to public peace and order.
(vi) The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner,
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, passed another order
vide Memo No. 486(A) dated 30.07.2025, again based on
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
recommendations made by respondent No.4, ordering
the detention of the petitioner under Section 12(1) & (2)
of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act for a further
period of three months.
(vii) The Senior Superintendent of Police, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide Letter No. 1379/DCB
dated 07.10.2025, once again addressed the District
Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, stating that the Home, Jail
and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, order
dated 07.11.2025 through Memo No.
05/CCA/01/33/2025/392/CCA had extended the
detention of petitioner for another three months (from
14.11.2025 to 13.02.2026) under the Jharkhand Crime
Control Act, 2002. Accordingly, it was recommended to
extend the detention of petitioner in the interest of
maintaining public peace and order.
(viii) The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, passed
an order vide Memo No. 694(A) dated 30.10.2025,
directing the continued detention of the petitioner under
Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes
Act for another three-month period.
(ix) The Additional Secretary, vide order dated
11.08.2025 through 05/CCA/01/33/2025-285/CCA,
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
Memo No. confirmed the extension of the detention of
petitioner for another three months, i.e., from
14.08.2025 to 13.11.2025 and vide order dated
07.11.2025 through Memo No. 05/CCA/01/33/
2025/392/CCA, confirmed the continued detention of
the petitioner for an additional three months, i.e. from
14.11.2025 to 13.02.2026, under Section 12(2) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders of
detention and orders of extension of detention, the present writ
petition has been preferred.
Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner:
4. Mr. Pran Pranay, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the
impugned order:
(i) It has been contended that the petitioner has
been illegally detained on the false allegation as the
impugned order has been passed by the same authority
without any addition of any criminal case.
(ii) 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 Crime
Control Act is improper use of Delegated Authority
beyond three months [Section 12(2) of Jharkhand Crime
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
Control Act,2002], that the delegation of power under
Section 12(2) is valid only for three months, and unless
re-delegated by fresh notification, the District
Magistrate's extension of the detention beyond that
period is ultra vires. The use of stale or lapsed delegation
renders the continued detention illegal.
(iii) It has been contended that the detention order
is based upon non- application of mind by detaining
authority as it acted mechanically.
(iv) It has been contended that the settled law as laid
down in the case of Ameena Begum v. State of
Telangana and others; (2023)9 SCC 587 has not been
followed which emphasized satisfaction has to be arrived
bearing in mind existence of live and proximate link
between the past conduct of a person and material which
is not stale.
(v) 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 Crime
Control Act is violation of Article 22 of the Constitution
of India, i.e., failure to communicate grounds or permit
representation, the petitioner was not given an effective
opportunity to make a representation, violating Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India.
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
(vi) 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 Crime
Control Act, 2002, is without any application of mind. 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.
(vii) It has been contended that the impugned
detention order gives absolutely no finding with respect
to the present petitioner being an anti-social element.
(viii) It has been contended that the term 'anti-social
element' has a specific meaning and has been defined
under Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes
Act, 2002. The inclusion of the petitioner within the
scope of anti-social element mandates him habitually
committing certain offences.
(ix) It has been contended that according to the
provision under section 12(2), it is mandatory to record
the reason, same is evidentially missing in the present
case. As such, the order of detention has been passed
without following the due procedure of law.
(x) It has been contended that the act of the
respondents in passing the impugned order under the
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
provisions of section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime
Control Act, has not taken into consideration that S.S.P,
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur had given a list of eight
cases based upon which the said order of preventive
detention was passed by the respondent No.3 and out of
eight cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in three
cases, three cases have been quashed and in two cases
petitioner has been granted bail and further he has not
committed any recent criminal act that justifies
preventive detention.
(xi) Learned counsel has relied on Judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Shaik Nazneen v.
Telangana and others; (2023) 9 SCC 633 and
submitted that State should have seek for cancellation
of his bail. But the State has taken shelter of
preventive detention which amounts to punitive, not
preventive, action which is impermissible under
preventive detention jurisprudence.
(xii) 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 Crime
Control Act is, is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of
law as detention is based on Station Diary Entries
(Sanhas) as well as FIR.
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
(xiii) It has been contended that no valid reason has
been shown for non- compliance with safeguards under
Article 22 of the Constitution, including, timely
communication of grounds of detention, opportunity to
make representation, etc. which are lacking in the
present case.
(xiv) The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that the impugned order,
therefore, needs interference by this Court.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:
5. Per contra, Mr. Deepankar, learned AC to GA-III
appearing for the respondent-State to defend the impugned
order 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 Crime Control Act, 2002 as the
petitioner is involved in eight criminal cases relating to
attempt to commit murder, theft, arms act, house
breaking, cheating and extortion and, as such, 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,
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
the orders impugned is in accordance with law which
requires no interference.
(iii) It has been contended that although the
petitioner has been granted bail in two cases and has
been acquitted in some of the cases but by taking into
consideration that the petitioner is habitual offender, the
orders of extension of detention has 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
detention 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 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.
(vi) It has been contended that the impugned order
of detention was extended from 14.11.2025 to
13.02.2026. The present petitioner is involved in various
illegal and criminal activities which is evident from the
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
institution of various FIRs against him.
(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
further in accordance with provision laid down under
section 21(1) and section 22 of Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act, 2002.
6. 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
7. 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
petitions and the counter affidavits.
8. The issues which require consideration herein are -
(i) Whether representation of the petitioner was not
forwarded by the jail authorities to the
Government, and hence, the jail authorities acted
mala fidely.
(ii) Whether the criminal activities of petitioner come
under the purview of definition of ''Anti-social
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
Elements'' as defined under section 2(d) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002?
(iii) 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?
Re: Issue No.(i)
9. Submission has been made by the petitioner counsel that
representation of the petitioner was not forwarded by the jail
authorities to the Government and hence, the jail authorities
acted mala fidely.
10. So, a controversy has been raised by the petitioner that his
representation was not decided by the Government.
11. At this juncture, Sections 17 of the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes,2002 needs to be referred herein.
12. Section 17 of the Act,2002 inter alia provides that ground
of orders of detention to be disclosed and opportunity of
making a representation against the order to the State
Government shall be given to the person affected by the order.
Section 17 of the Act, 2002 reads as under-
17. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to person
affected by the order. - (1) When a person is detained in
pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order
shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days
and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded
in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention,
communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a
representation against the order to the State Government.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to
disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest
to disclose.
13. Further, Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that the
authority making the order shall as soon as may be communicate
the grounds on which the order has been made to the person
detained and the detaining authority shall afford to the person
detained the earliest opportunity of making a representation
against the order.
14. Following the mandate of Article 22(5), provision has been
made under section 17 of Jharkhand Control of Crimes,2002,
wherein it has been provided that the detaining authority shall
communicate the grounds to the detenue on which the detention
order has been passed and shall afford to the detenue an earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order to the
State Government.
15. In the present case, this Court finds that at paragraph-22 of
the writ petition, petitioner has admitted that copy of the order
passed by the District Magistrate and copy of order confirming
the preventive dentation was given to him.
16. Hence, one of the constitutional requirements as provided
under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India and Section 17 of the
Act,2002, as to communicate the grounds to the detenue on
which the detention order has been passed has been fulfilled by
the State/Respondent, by providing the petitioner, the detention
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
order dated 14.05.2025(Annexure-2) passed by the respondent
no.3 District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum
East, Jamshedpur, which has been admitted by the petitioner in
his writ application itself.
17. Now, the controversy raised by the petitioner at paragraph -
20 of the writ petition that his representation was not forwarded
to the detaining authorities, by the Jail Authorities and hence,
petitioner has alleged that jail authorities acted maliciously and
biasness. Paragraph-20 of the writ petition is quoted herein below
for ready reference-
"20. That it is furthermore submitted in this regard that even
after all of this when Petitioner tried to send a representation to
the Detaining Authority the same was refused by the Jail
Authorities and it was communicated to him that the same would
not be forwarded. This clearly depicts the malicious and baised
attitude of the Jail Authorities."
18. From the aforesaid paragraph of the writ petition, it is evident
that petitioner has alleged that his representation was refused
by the Jail Authorities and it was communicated to him that the
same would not be forwarded.
19. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, this Court
has gone through the entire pleading of the writ petition as well
as exhibit annexed therein, wherefrom it is apparent that in
support of aforesaid statement the petitioner has not placed any
cogent evidence and he has just stated that his right of
representation has been curtailed by the Jail authorities.
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
20. It is settled position that allegation without evidence has no
leg to stand and in the absence of cogence the same can only be
treated as bald and empty allegation. Further the initial onus to
substantiate the allegation of not forwarding the petitioner's
representation by the jail authorities lies on the petitioner himself
and the petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence to
substantiate his allegation.
21. Hence, petitioner himself has failed to prove that his
representation was not forwarded by the jail authorities to the
Government.
22. At this juncture it would be pertinent to see the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex court on the question of burden of proving a
case based on allegation of mala fide.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandra Prakash Singh
v. Purvanchal Gramin Bank, (2008) 12 SCC 292, has held that
it is a proposition of law that the burden of proving mala fides is
very heavy on the person who alleges it. Mere allegation is not
enough. Party making such allegations is under the legal
obligation to place specific materials before the court to
substantiate the said allegations. There has to be very strong and
convincing evidence to establish the allegations of mala fides
specifically and definitely alleged in the petition as the same
cannot merely be presumed. The presumption under law is in
favour of the bona fides of the order unless contradicted by
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
acceptable material, for ready reference the paragraph-34 of the
aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein below-
"34. Thus, as a proposition of law, the burden of proving mala
fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Mere allegation
is not enough. Party making such allegations is under the legal
obligation to place specific materials before the court to
substantiate the said allegations. There has to be very strong
and convincing evidence to establish the allegations of mala fides
specifically and definitely alleged in the petition as the same
cannot merely be presumed. The presumption under law is in
favour of the bona fides of the order unless contradicted by
acceptable material."
24. Further, in case of E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4
SCC 3, while dealing the issue of mala fide, Hon'ble Apex Court
laid down that the Court would be slow to draw dubious
inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party,
particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made
against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in
the administration. Paragraph-92 of the said judgment is being
quoted herein below-
"92. Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden of
establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges
it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than
proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands
proof of a high order of credibility. Here the petitioner, who was
himself once the Chief Secretary, has flung a series of charges of
oblique conduct against the Chief Minister. That is in itself a
rather extraordinary and unusual occurrence and if these
charges are true, they are bound to shake the confidence of the
people in the political custodians of power in the State, and
therefore, the anxiety of the Court should be all the greater to
insist on a high degree of proof. In this context it may be noted
that top administrators are often required to do acts which affect
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
others adversely but which are necessary in the execution of
their duties. These acts may lend themselves to misconstruction
and suspicion as to the bona fides of their author when the full
facts and surrounding circumstances are not known. The Court
would, therefore, be slow to draw dubious inferences from
incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when
the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder
of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration.
Such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charge of unworthy
conduct against ministers and other high authorities, not
because of any special status which they are supposed to enjoy,
nor because they are highly placed in social life or administrative
set up--these considerations are wholly irrelevant in judicial
approach--but because otherwise, functioning effectively would
become difficult in a democracy. It is from this standpoint that
we must assess the merits of the allegations of mala fides made
by the petitioner against the second respondent."
(emphasis supplied)
25. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove this Court
is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to prove
mala fides against the jail authorities and has not produced any
clinching evidence and merely imputing allegation against the jail
authorities that jail authorities had not forwarded his
representation, is not fit to be accepted.
26. Be that as it may, every case of preventive detention needs to
be placed before the Advisory Board constituted. It is only after
the Advisory Board finds that there is sufficient cause for
detention, detention order can be confirmed by the State
Government.
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
27. In the counter affidavit, respondent has stated that Advisory
Board has given its opinion on 24.06.2025 finding sufficient
ground for detention of the petitioner.
28. Accordingly, by order dated 08.07.2025(Annexure-5), the
respondent no.2 under section 21(1) and section 22 of the
Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, had confirmed the
impugned original detention order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure-
2) passed by the respondent no.2.
29. Accordingly, Issue No.(i) is answered against the petitioner.
Re: Issue No.(ii) and Issue No.(iii)
30. Since both these issues are interlinked, as such, are being
taken up together for its consideration.
31. But before considering these issues, the statutory provisions
as contained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes,2002 needs
to be referred. The relevant provisions which require
consideration are Sections 2(d) and section 12 of the Jharkhand
Control of Crimes,2002, which are necessary to be referred
herein.
32. "Anti-social Element" has been defined in section 2(d) of the
Act,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
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
(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.
33. Further, Section 12 of the Act,2002 empowers the State
Government to detain a person, 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.
(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
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
modification that, for the words "twelve days", the words "fifteen days" shall be
substituted.
34. Hence, 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.
35. So, section 12(1) 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.
36. In the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions, the
factual aspect of the present case is to be considered in order to
consider these issue as formulated herein above.
37. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, the
petitioner has challenged the order of preventive detention dated
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
14.05.2025 (Annexure-2) passed under section 12 of the
Jharkhand Control of Crime Act,2002 by the respondent no.3
District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum
East, Jamshedpur and also the subsequent orders 30.07.2025
and 30.10.2025 extending the period of detention.
38. The petitioner has also challenged orders dated
08.07.2025,11.08.2025 and 07.11.2015 passed under section
21(1) and section 22 of the Act,2002 by the Respondent No.2
Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Government of
Jharkhand wherein detention order and subsequent orders
extending the period of detention were also confirmed.
39. On going through the original detention order dated
14.05.2025(Annexure-2), we find this detention order was passed
by the respondent no.3 District Magistrate-cum-Deputy
Commissioner East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, on the
recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide Letter No. 494/DCB dated
26.04.2025, wherein involvement of the petitioner in eight
criminal cases and five cases based on sanha is mentioned.
40. We find from recommendations made by the Superintendent
of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide Letter No.
494/DCB dated 26.04.2025, following eight FIRs registered
against the petitioner in the Golmuri Police Station and Sidhgoda
Police Station:
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
(i) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-208/2019 dated 26.10.2018
under sections 323/356/379/34 of IPC.
(ii) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-110/2019 dated 20.06.2019
under sections 420/120B of IPC
(iii) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-99/2015 dated O1.04.2015 under
sections 147/148/149/427/448 of IPC
(iv) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-172/2019 dated 23.08.2019
under sections 452/354(kha)/323/307/379/506/427/34 of
IPC
(v) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-67/2020 dated 31.05.2020 under
sections 341/323/307/506/384/388/34 of IPC
(vi) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-149/2018 dated 02.11.2018
under sections 323/341/379/504/506/427/34 of IPC
(vii) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-118/2022 dated 05.09.2022
under sections 324/326/307/34 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act
(viii) Sidhgoda P.S.Case No.-175/2019 dated 23.09.2019
under sections 341/323/34 of IPC.
41. It is evident that various cases have been registered against
the petitioner in the district of East Singhbhum. Out of the said
eight FIRs, in Golmuri P.S.Case No.-67/2020 dated 31.05.2020
and Golmuri P.S.Case No.-118/2022 dated 05.09.2022, the
petitioner is on bail and in the remaining other cases, the
petitioner has been acquitted or case has been quashed.
42. On perusal of pending cases against the petitioner, we find
from detention order dated 14.05.2025(Annexure-2) that in
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
Golmuri P.S.Case No.-67/2020 dated 31.05.2020, charge sheet
has been submitted against the petitioner inter alia under section
307 and section 384 of IPC. Further, in Golmuri P.S.Case No.-
118/2022 dated 05.09.2022, charges sheet has been submitted
against the petitioner under section 302/120B IPC and under
section 25(1B)(a)25(A)/26/27/35 of Arms Act.
43. Hence, from the FIRs and charge sheet mentioned in the
detention order dated 14.05.2025(Annexure-2), it indicates that
crime committed by the petitioner ranges to murder, attempt to
murder, extortion etc. and the cases under Arms Act has also
been registered against the petitioner.
44. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that petitioner
habitually commits offences punishable under section Chapter
XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and hence comes
under the purview of anti-social element as defined in section
2(d)(i) of the Act 2002.
45. Further the question of subjective satisfaction has also been
taken as the ground of non-consideration of order of bail,
acquittal and quashing of the case against the petitioner. The
ground of bail, acquittal and quashing of the case against the
petitioner, 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
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
competent authority anticipating the criminality of the concerned
and it would be evident from the accusation made in the
paragraph-15 of the writ petition wherein two pending criminal
cases against the petitioner has also been mentioned, as has
already been discussed in the preceding paragraph, wherein he
is on bail, but, whatever allegation has been made against the
writ petitioner that is of serious in nature.
46. In present case, on perusal of two pending cases against the
petitioner i.e. Golmuri P.S.Case No.-67/2020 and Golmuri
P.S.Case No.-118/2022, both are related to year 2020 and 2022
respectively and are concerning the offences under sections
302,307, 384 of IPC and offence under Arms Act, which are very
grave in nature.
47. The authority concerned while passing the impugned
detention order which was passed on 14.05.2025 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.
Hence, judgment of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and
others(supra), relied on by the petitioner is not applicable in the
facts and circumstance of the present case.
48. Further, the case of Shaik Nazneen v. Telangana and
others; (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
wherein learned counsel has submitted that State should have
seek for cancellation of bail of the petitioner is also not applicable
in the case in hand as petitioner habitually commits offences
punishable under section Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the
Indian Penal Code as mentioned in section 2(d)(i) of the
Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002.
49. Further it is apparent that the detaining authority
respondent no.3 while passing the detention order 14.05.2025
(Annexure-2), under section 12 of the Act was satisfied that
petitioner if released from jail will act in manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order.
50. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid factual aspect
is of the view that respondent authorities after being satisfied
from the material available on record has considered that the
petitioner comes under purview of ''Anti-social Elements'' as
defined under section 2(d)(i) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes
Act, 2002 and detention of petitioner is required to maintain
public order and while arriving the said satisfaction, the
authority concerned has followed all the constitutional mandate
therefore, order of detention requires no inference by this Court.
51. Accordingly, Issue No.(ii) and Issue No.(iii) are hereby
answered.
52. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the orders of
detention need no interference.
53. Accordingly, the detention order dated 14.05.2025
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
(Annexure-2) and the subsequent orders 30.07.2025 and
30.10.2025 extending the period of detention, passed by the
respondent no. 3 and orders dated 08.07.2025,11.08.2025 and
07.11.2015 passed under section 21(1) and section 22 of the
Act,2002 by the Respondent No.2 Additional Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand wherein
detention order and subsequent orders extending the period of
preventive detention were also confirmed, requires no
interference.
54. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
55. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
I agree. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Date : 03/02/2026
Birendra / A.F.R.
Uploaded On: - 04/02/2026
