[Cites 29, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bipin Bihari Singh @ Dipu Singh Age About ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:153-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) (DB) No.662 of 2025
-------
Bipin Bihari Singh @ Dipu Singh age about 30 Years S/O Hare Ram Singh
R/O Village-Chakulia Swarna Rekha Colony, Chakulia Naya Bazar P.O.
& P.S.- Chakulia District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary Department of Home,
Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa
P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur District-Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
3. Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management
Department Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building,
Dhurwa P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. District Magistrate-Cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum
at Jamshedpur P.O. & P.S. Sakchi District-East Singhbhum Town-
Jamshedpur (Jharkhand).
5. Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur
P.O. & P.S. Sakchi District East Singhbhum Town-Jamshedpur
(Jharkhand).
6. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ghatshila at Ghatshila P.O. & P.S.
Ghatshila District East Singhbhum Town-Jamshedpur (Jharkhand).
7. Officer In-charge Chakulia Police Station at Chakulia P.O. & P.S.
Chakulia District East Singhbhum Town-Jamshedpur (Jharkhand).
8. Jail Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi,
having its Office at Hotwar P.O.-Hotwar, P.S. Khelgaon District Ranchi
(Jharkhand). ................ Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA
C.A.V on 08.12.2025 Pronounced on 06/01/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
2026:JHHC:153-DB
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking therein for the following relief:
"For issuance of an appropriate writ(S), order(S) or
direction(S) or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of
Order dated 30/07/2025, contained in Memo No.18/PITNDPS-
09/2025-3087, Ranchi (Annexure-4) issued by the Respondent
No.3 (Principal Secretary Home, Prison and Disaster
Management Department Government of Jharkhand Ranchi)
whereby and where under Respondent No.3, has been pleased
to pass an order to arrest the petitioner and detained him in
Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi, under Provision of
Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, (PITNDPS) Act, 1988, as
amended without assigning any reason and without specifying
time of its enforcement and then further prayed before this
Hon'ble court to direct Jail authority to release the petitioner
forthwith as petitioner has already been granted bail in two
other cases in which he was remanded."
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ
petition, needs to be referred herein, which reads as under:
(i) It is the case of the petitioner that he was implicated in a case
being Chakulia P.S. Case No. 35/2024 on 06/05/2024,
registered for the offence under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (c)/22 (c),
25, 29 of NDPS Act, but subsequently coming to know about
his involvement in the aforesaid case on the basis of
confession of the apprehended accused, he surrendered before
the trial court and subsequently he was granted bail by this
Hon'ble Court in B.A. No. 10626 of 2024 on 17.12.2024.
(ii) However, before he could be released from the bail, he was
remanded in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case
No.161/2022, registered for the offence under Sections
414/34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (c)/22 (c), 25,
29 of NDPS Act, but subsequently he filed an application for
2026:JHHC:153-DB
grant of bail before this Hon'ble Court in B.A. No.1877/2025
and bail was granted though the recovery was of commercial
quantity.
(iii) Then, on being granted bail in Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case
No.161/2022, the petitioner was released on 31st July, 2025
from the Ramgarh Jail and was in his hotel. In the meantime,
the police officer of the Chakulia police Station came and
arrested him and sent to Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar,
Ranchi, without informing that why he has been arrested.
(iv) Subsequently, letter dated 30.07.2025, issued by the
Respondent No.3, was served upon him inside the jail then he
came to know that he has been detained under Section 3 (1)
of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances, 1988.
3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present petitioner
approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 30.07.2025, as
contained in Memo No.18/PITNDPS-09/2025-3087.
Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner:
4. Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the
impugned order: -
i. It has been contended that the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the
Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management is not
sustainable in the eye of law as it has been passed without any
authority of law.
2026:JHHC:153-DB
ii. It has been contended that from perusal of the entire records, it would
be crystal clear that the petitioner has illegally been detained.
iii. It has been contended that officer-in-charge of Chakulia Police
Station had made proposal for imposing Section 3(1) of the Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988, on
17.12.2024 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum,
and thereafter, after seven and half months, order for detention has
been issued, when there is no adverse report against the petitioner after
December, 2024 and petitioner was granted regular bail by the Court
of law.
iv.The Chakulia Thana Senha No. 14, 16 and 12 dated 02.12.2024,
06.12.2024 and 09.12.2024, has got not any substance as these Sanhas
have been registered to make out a case of preventive dentition.
v. It has further been contended that the preventive detention of the
petitioner is also not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the fact
that no explanation has been given by the respondent no.3., Principal
Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department as to
how the preventive detention of the petitioner is necessary after seven
and half months of the report when there is no adverse report against
the petitioner.
vi. It has been contended that the unreasonable delay in passing the order
of detention from the date of proposal of detention order, is arbitrary
and illegal.
vii. It has further been contended that the impugned order gives
absolutely no finding with respect to the present petitioner.
2026:JHHC:153-DB
viii. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court
passed in case of Sushanta Kumar Banilk Vs. State of Tripura and
Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1333 and has submitted that
in the case in hand also, the detaining authority has passed the
detention order after unreasonable delay.
5. Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that the impugned order, therefore, needs interference by this
Court and as such, the same may be quashed.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:
6. Per contra, Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned AC to AAG-IA appearing
for the respondent-State has defended the impugned order by taking the
following grounds:
i. It has been contended that the Senior Superintendent of Police, East
Singhbhum vide letter no.1651/DCB dated 30.12.2024, sent a
proposal to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, for invoking
the provision of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
ii. It has been contended that the Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum vide Letter No. 28(A) dated 20.01. 2025 submitted a
proposal to the Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster
Management, Jharkhand for detention of the petitioner invoking the
provision of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
2026:JHHC:153-DB
iii. On receipt of proposal of detention, reports on several points were
sought by the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management,
Jharkhand from Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum vide letter
no. 409 dated 31.01.2025.
iv. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, had sent the required
report to Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management,
Jharkhand, vide letter no. 344(A) dated 24.05.2025, informing the all
the criminal cases, custody status and possibility of getting involved
in the smuggling activity on release on jail.
v. As such, the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 has been passed by the
Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management
Department, Government of Jharkhand, in exercise of power
conferred under section 3(i) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
vi. On the basis of the said detention order dated 30.07.2025, petitioner
was arrested on 22.08.2025 and detention order was served on
23.08.2025 and a copy of grounds of detention was served on
27.08.2025.
vii. Petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board on 16.09.2025
and after the opinion of the Advisory Board, the detention order dated
30.07.2025 has been confirmed and period of detention under section
11 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, has been fixed as one year, vide
departmental order no.4324 dated 14.11.2025.
2026:JHHC:153-DB
viii.It has been contended that the petitioner was involved in spreading
network of illegal sell-purchase and smuggling of Narcotic substances
like Ganja.
ix.It has further been contended that with the help of his associates, the
petitioner is spreading the network for smuggling Ganja. He is a
habitual smuggler of Ganja.
x.It has also been contended that there are three cases registered against
the present petitioner under the NDPS Act, i.e., Chakuliya PS Case
No.35 of 2024, Mandu (Kuju) PS Case No.161 of 2022 and Arwal P.S.
(Bihar) Case No.51 of 2024.
xi.It has been contended that the present petitioner has acquired many
immovable and movable property from illegal earning of Ganja
Smuggling. People in town as well as village area are getting adversely
affected from addition of Ganja and also in fear that their children may
involve in illegal drug trade or get addicted.
xii.It has been contended that for the interest of society, he must remain
in jail so that he cannot disturb public order in any manner. There is
strong apprehension that if he is released, then he will again indulge
in smuggling activity. His criminal conduct has already caused fear
and anxiety amongst youth and children and his influence has
adversely affected their physical health.
7. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that the impugned order, thus, needs no interference and as
such, the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
2026:JHHC:153-DB
Analysis:
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone
through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter-
affidavit along with the relevant documents annexed therewith.
9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspects, the following issues
require consideration herein: -
(i) Whether there is un-reasonable delay in passing the impugned
order of detention dated 30.07.2025, though, the proposal was
made in December, 2024?
(ii) Whether the grant of bail to the petitioner in some cases is
ground for his release from the preventive detention passed
under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988?
10. But, before considering the said issues, the statutory provision as
contained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 with its object and intent needs to be
referred herein.
11. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 has been
enacted keeping in view that in recent years, India has been facing a
problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. The spillover from such traffic
has caused problems of abuse and addiction. This trend has created an
illicit demand for drugs within the country which may result in the
increase of illicit cultivation and manufacture of drugs. Although a
number of legislative, administrative and other preventive measures,
including the deterrent penal provisions in the Narcotic Drugs and
2026:JHHC:153-DB
Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985, have been taken by the Government,
the transit traffic in illicit drugs had not been completely eliminated. It
was, therefore, felt that a preventive detention law should be enacted with
a view to effectively immobilising the traffickers. The Conservation of
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
provides for preventive detention in relation to smuggling of drugs and
psychotropic substances, but it cannot be invoked to deal with persons
engaged in illicit traffic of drugs and psychotropic substances within the
country. It was, therefore, felt that a separate legislation should be enacted
for preventive detention of persons engaged in any kind of illicit traffic in
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
12. The relevant provisions which require consideration, i.e., Sections
3, 6, 9 and 11 of the Act, 1988, which are necessary to be referred herein
which read hereunder as:-
"3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.-(I) The
Central Government or a State Government, or any officer of
the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary
to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of
this section by that Government, or any officer of a State
Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that
Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this
section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to
any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to
preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an
order directing that such person be detained.
(2) When any order of detention is made by a State
Government or by an officer empowered by a State
Government, the State Government shall, within ten days,
forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the
order.
(3) For the purposes of clause (5) of Article 22 of the
Constitution, the communication to a person detained in
pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the
order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the
detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in
exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in
writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention.
6. Grounds of detention severable. -Where a person has been
detained in pursuance of an order of detention under sub-section
(1) of section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds,
2026:JHHC:153-DB
such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made
separately on each of such grounds and accordingly-
(a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or
inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or
are-
(i) vague,
(ii) non-existent,
(iii) not relevant,
(iv) not connected or not proximately connected with
such person, or
(v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever,
and it is not therefore possible to hold that the Government or
officer making such order would have been satisfied as
provided in sub-section (I) of section 3 with reference to the
remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention;
(b) the Government or officer making the order of
detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention
under the said sub-section (I) after being satisfied as provided
in that sub-section with reference to the remaining ground or
grounds.
9. Advisory Boards.-For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of
clause (4) and subclause (c) of clause (7) of article 22 of the
Constitution,-
(a) the Central Government' and each State Government
shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more
Advisory Boards each of which shall consist of a
Chairman and two other persons possessing the
qualifications specified in sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of
article 22 of the Constitution;
(b) save as otherwise provided in section 10, the appropriate
Government shall, within five weeks from the date of
detention of a person under a detention order, make a
reference in respect thereof to the Advisory Board
constituted under clause (a) to enable the Advisory
Board to make the report under sub-clause (a) of clause
(4) of article 22 of the Constitution;
(c) the Advisory Board to which a reference is made under
clause (b) shall after considering the reference and the
materials placed before it and after calling for such
further information as it may deem necessary from the
appropriate Government or from any person, called for
the purpose through the appropriate Government or from
the person concerned, and if, in any particular case, it
considers it essential so to do or if the person concerned
desires to be heard in person, after hearing him in person,
prepare its report specifying in a separate paragraph
thereof its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient
cause for the detention of the person concerned and
submit the same within eleven weeks from the date of
detention of the person concerned;
(d) when there is a difference of opinion among the
members forming the Advisory Board, the opinion of the
majority of such members shall be deemed to be the
opinion of the Board;
(e) a person against whom an order of detention has been
made under this Act shall not be entitled to appear by
any legal practitioner in any matter connected with the
reference to the Advisory Board and the proceedings of
the Advisory Board and its report, excepting that part of
2026:JHHC:153-DB
the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is
specified, shall be confidential;
(f) in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that
there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention
of a person, the appropriate Government may confirm
the detention order and continue the detention of the
person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and in
every case where the Advisory Board has reported that
there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the
detention of the person concerned, the appropriate
Government shall revoke the detention order and cause
the person to be released forthwith.
11. Maximum period of detention.-The maximum
period for which any person may be detained in
pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions
of section 10 do not apply and which has been confirmed
under clause (f) of section 9 shall be one year from the
date of detention, and the maximum period for which
any person may be detained in pursuance of any
detention order to which the provisions of section 10
apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of
section 9, read with sub-section (2) of section 10, shall
be two years from the date of detention:
Provided that nothing contained in this section
shall affect the power of appropriate Government in
either case to revoke or modify the detention order at any
earlier time."
13. It is evident from the scope that the Act, 1988 has been enacted
since India has been facing a problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. It
was, therefore, felt that a preventive detention law should be enacted with
a view to effectively immobilising the traffickers. The Central
Government and the State Governments have been empowered to make
orders of detention with respect to any person in respect of whom an order
of detention is made under the Ordinance at any time before the 31 st July,
1990 may be detained without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board
for a period not exceeding one year from the date of his detention if the
detaining authority is satisfied that such person is engaged, or is likely to
engage, in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in
any area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic.
14. The "Illicit Traffic" has been defined as under Section 2(e) of the Act,
1988 which reads hereunder as:-
2026:JHHC:153-DB
"2. (e) "illicit traffic", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, means-
(i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca
plant;
(ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant;
(iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale,
purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or
consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import
into India, export from India or transhipment, of narcotic
drugs or psychotropic substances;
(iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances other than those provided in sub-clauses (i) to
(iii); or
(v) handling or letting any premises for the carrying on of any
of the activities referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv), other
than those permitted under the Naroctic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) or any rule
or order made, or any condition of any licence, term or
authorisation issued, thereunder and includes-
(1) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the aforementioned
activities:
(2) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance of or in support of
doing any of the aforementioned activities; and
(3) harbouring persons engaged in any of the aforementioned
activities:"
15. Section 3 of the Act, 1988 provides power to make orders detaining
certain persons, wherefrom, it is evident that the competent authority if
satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a
view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order
directing that such person be detained. But, for the purpose of clause (5)
of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained
in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has
been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but
ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and
for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the
date of detention.
16. Section 9 of the Act, 1988 provides constitution of an Advisory Board
with an intent to achieve the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) and
subclause (c) of clause (7) of article 22 of the Constitution of India with
2026:JHHC:153-DB
the conferment of power upon the Advisory Board that if any reference
has been made and the materials placed before it and after calling for such
further information as it may deem necessary from the appropriate
Government or from any person, called for the purpose through the
appropriate Government or from the person concerned, and if, in any
particular case, it considers it essential so to do or if the person concerned
desires to be heard in person, after hearing him in person, prepare its
report specifying in a separate paragraph thereof its opinion as to whether
or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned
and submit the same within eleven weeks from the date of detention of
the person concerned.
17.The maximum period of detention has been provided under Section 11 of
the Act, 1988 and as provided therein any person may be detained in
pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 10 do
not apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9 shall
be one year from the date of detention, and the maximum period for which
any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which
the provisions of section 10 apply and which has been confirmed under
clause (f) of section 9, read with sub-section (2) of section 10, shall be
two years from the date of detention.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken into consideration the issue of
detention and agreeing with the object of the preventive detention
enactments, the law has been laid down that since the power to detain a
person is snatching away the liberty as enshrined as a fundamental right
under the Constitution and, as such, the said power is to be exercised with
all care and circumspection so that there may not be any vice of malice or
2026:JHHC:153-DB
the arbitrary exercise on the part of the State to snatch away the personal
liberty of an individual.
19. It is for this reason also, specific reference has been made under Section
3(3) of the Act, 1988, wherein, Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution
of India has been referred, meaning thereby, the mandate of the
Constitution as enshrined under Article 22 is mandatorily to be followed
so as to not to subject any individual from the vice of arbitrariness for the
purpose of snatching away the liberty of an individual. But,
simultaneously it has also been held that if situation so warrants then the
detention order can be passed but subject to fulfilment of all requirements
as provided under Section 3, Section 6 and Section 8 of the Act, 1988, by
taking care of that the period of detention does not exceed one year as
provided under Section 11 of the Act, 1988 so as to make balance while
snatching away the liberty of an individual, reference in this regard may
be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mortuza Hussain Choudhary Vs. State of Nagaland and Others
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 502, wherein, at paragraph-2, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"2. Preventive detention is a draconian measure whereby a
person who has not been tried and convicted under a penal
law can be detained and confined for a determinate period of
time so as to curtail that person's anticipated criminal
activities. This extreme mechanism is, however, sanctioned by
Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India. Significantly,
Article 22 also provides stringent norms to be adhered to while
effecting preventive detention. Further, Article 22 speaks of the
Parliament making law prescribing the conditions and
modalities relating to preventive detention. The Act of 1988 is
one such law which was promulgated by the Parliament
authorizing preventive detention so as to curb illicit trafficking
of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Needless to
state, as preventive detention deprives a person of his/her
individual liberties by detaining him/her for a length of time
without being tried and convicted of a criminal offence, the
prescribed safeguards must be strictly observed to ensure due
2026:JHHC:153-DB
compliance with constitutional and statutory norms and
requirements."
20. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provision and judicial
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the factual aspect of the
present case is to be considered in order to consider the issue as
formulated hereinabove.
Re : Issue No. I
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
impugned order of detention dated 30.07.2025, passed by the
Respondent No.3-Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster
Management Department, Government of Jharkhand, there is un-
reasonable delay in passing the detention order as the proposal for
detention was initiated vide memo no. 2429/2024 dated on 17.12.2024
by the officer-in-charge of Chakulia Police Station and hence, the
impugned detention order has been passed after delay of seven and half
months. Hence, the impugned preventive detention order dated
30.07.2025 and proposal report as contained in memo no. 2429/2024
dated 17.12.2024 has no close nexus and so, requires interference by
this court.
22.Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, it is the admitted
case that the order of detention was passed on 30.07.2025.
23. We have perused the aforesaid detention order of the petitioner. The
detention order of the petitioner was issued by the Respondent no.3 on
30.07.2025 and he was arrested on 22.08.2025, detention order was
served on 23.08.2025 and a copy of ground of detention was served on
27.08.2025.
2026:JHHC:153-DB
24. Thereafter, petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board on
16.09.2025 and after opinion by the Advisory Board, the impugned
detention order dated 30.07.2025 was confirmed and the period of
detention under section 11 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 has been fixed as one
year, vide department order no. 4324 dated 14.11.2025.
25. To examine the issue of undue delay in passing the impugned detention
order dated 30.07.2025, this court is going through the proposals of the
respondents.
26. We find that before passing the impugned detention order dated
30.07.2025, firstly, proposal was sent by the officer-in-charge of
Chakulia Police Station ,vide memo no. 2429/2024 dated 17.12.2024 to
the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum.
27.Thereafter, aforesaid proposal was forwarded by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, to the Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, vide letter no.1651/DCB dated
30.12.2024, for invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1988
and then, proposal was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum, to the Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster
Management, Jharkhand, vide Letter No. 28(A) dated 20.01. 2025.
28. Thereafter, on receipt of proposal of detention by the Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, reports on several points were sought
by the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management,
Jharkhand from Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, vide letter no.
409 dated 31.01.2025.
2026:JHHC:153-DB
29. Then, Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, had sent the required
report to Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management,
Jharkhand, vide letter no. 344(A) dated 24.05.2025(Annexure-C),
informing all the criminal cases and custody status of the petitioner and
possibility of getting involved in the smuggling activity on release from
jail.
30. On perusal of letter no.344(A) dated 24.05.2025(Annexure-C), we find
that the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum in its report sent to
Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Jharkhand,
Ranchi, has referred three cases, showing the involvement of the
petitioner in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act:
1. Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.161/2022 dated 18.07.2022
registered for the offence under Sections 414/34 of I.P.C. and
under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (c)/22 (c), 25, 29 of NDPS Act
2. Arwal Police Station (Bihar) case no. 51/2024 dated
04.02.2024 under section 8/20 (b) (ii) (c)/22 (c), 25, 29 of
NDPS Act
3. Chakulia P.S. Case No. 35/2024 dated 06.05.2024, registered
for the offence under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (c)/22 (c), 25, 29 of
NDPS Act.
31. Hence, on passing of the impugned detention order dated 30.07.2025
subsequent thereto, petitioner was immediately arrested on 22.08.2025.
32. Thus, it is apparent that procedure which is required for the detention
as mandated under the Act, 1988 as well as under Article 22 of the
Indian constitution, has been followed.
33. At this juncture, it is pertinent to discuss the Judgment of Sushanta
Kumar Banik(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2026:JHHC:153-DB
34. On going through the aforesaid judgment, we find that in this case
Hon'ble Apex Court has inter alia dealt with two issues, firstly delay in
arresting the detenu after the passing the order of detention and
secondly, delay in passing the order of detention from date of proposal.
35. In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that unreasonable delay
in proposal and passing of the order of detention, shall be satisfactorily
explained. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is being quoted
herein below:-
"21. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above
decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if
there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of
detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner
from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of
detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a
considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the
detention order and consequently render the detention order
bad and invalid because the "live and proximate link" between
the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is
snapped in arresting the detenu. A question whether the delay
is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case."
(emphasis supplied)
36.Thus, from the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that if there is any delay
in passing the detention order, then it should be satisfactorily explained
and further, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "a
question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained,
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case."
37. In the case in hand, the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, had
forwarded the proposal to the Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and
Disaster Management, Jharkhand, vide Letter No.28(A) dated 20.01.
2025, but, on receipt of proposal of detention by the Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, reports on several points were sought by
2026:JHHC:153-DB
the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Jharkhand
from Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum vide letter no. 409 dated
31.01.2025.
38. Then, the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, had sent the
required report to Department of Home, Prison and Disaster
Management, Jharkhand, vide letter no. 344(A) dated
24.05.2025(Annexure-C), informing all the criminal cases and custody
status of the petitioner and possibility of getting involved in the
smuggling activity if release from the jail.
39. Herein, it is pertinent to note that the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority as the mandate of the Constitution as enshrined
under Article 22 is mandatorily to be followed so as not to subject any
individual from of the vice of arbitrariness for the purpose of snatching
away the liberty of an individual.
40. The question of subjective satisfaction, assumes paramount
satisfaction so far as the statutory mandate as provided under Section 3
and the very object of the Act, 1988 is concerned, wherein, the
subjective satisfaction of the concerned authority is a primary condition
for passing the detention order, meaning thereby, there must not be
mechanical order.
41. The connotation of subjective satisfaction means that the authority,
who is proposing to put a person in confinement, is to produce all
relevant documents before the sanctioning authority for its
consideration before taking any decision of snatching away the
personal liberty. Subjective satisfaction, therefore, means the active
application of mind and such active application of mind cannot be said
2026:JHHC:153-DB
to be made applicable in absence of the relevant documents for which
the person concerned is being detained by infringement of his
fundamental right as enshrined under the Constitution of India.
42. In the instant case, the detaining authority in order to satisfy himself as
per the mandate of Section 3 of the Act of 1988, upon the receipt of
proposal of detention by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
had made queries on several points and had called for report from
Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum. The queries are annexed at
Annexure- B of the counter affidavit.
43. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, had sent the
required report to Department of Home, Prison and Disaster
Management, Jharkhand, vide letter no. 344(A) dated
24.05.2025(Annexure-C), informing all the criminal cases and custody
status of the petitioner and possibility of getting involved in the
smuggling activity on release from jail and then, detaining authority
Respondent No.3, on being satisfied had issued impugned detention
order against the petitioner.
44. Herein, the alleged delay in passing the detention order has been
satisfactorily explained and the same has been caused due to the process
in reaching to the subjective satisfaction by the authority concerned as
per the mandate of Section 3 of the Act 1988.
45. Accordingly, the Issue No. I is answered.
Re : Issue No. II
46. Further, the petitioner has raised the ground that he has been granted bail
by the Court of law, and the said cases were relied by the detaining
2026:JHHC:153-DB
authority while passing the impugned order of detention dated 30.07.2025
and hence, detention order cannot be sustained.
47. We find that out of the three FIRs as were registered against the
petitioner, i.e., Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.161/2022 dated 18.07.2022
and Chakulia P.S. Case No. 35/2024 dated 06.05.2024, petitioner has
been granted regular bail by order of thisCourt and in Arwal Police
Station (Bihar) Case No. 51/2024 dated 04.02.2024, the investigation
is pending.
48. So far as issue of release of the detenue on bail is concerned, we find
that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that in
spite of his continuous activities causing threat to maintenance of public
order and in such circumstances, based on the relevant materials and
satisfying itself, that it would not be possible to control his habituality
in continuing the criminal activities by resorting the normal procedures,
the Detaining Authority passed an order detaining him under the Act.
49. The ground of bail cannot be said to affect the decision taken by the
competent authority of detention, rather, the accusation so made in the
First Information Report is to be seen for the purpose to have the
subjective satisfaction of the nature of accusation made in the said FIR.
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, vide letter no.344(A) dated
24.05.2025(Annexure-C) of the Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum, sent to Department of Home, Prison and Disaster
Management, Jharkhand, wherein, three pending criminal cases
registered under the NDPS Act have been mentioned.
2026:JHHC:153-DB
50. 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 the case of D.M Nagaraja Versus
Government of Karnataka and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 215
wherein detenue had challenged his detention order. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in this case had noted at paragraph-17 that the even after release on
bail, detenue again started indulging in the same type of offences,
particularly, threatening the public life, damaging public property, etc. and
hence, detenue appeal was dismissed. Further in paragraph-20 of the
aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court had noted the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order
against the detenue, for the ready reference, Paragraphs-17 and 20 of the
judgment passed in the case of D.M. Nagaraja (supra) case are 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
2026:JHHC:153-DB
detaining authority as well as the impugned order of the High
Court affirming the same."
xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
20. In the case on hand, we have already extracted criminality,
criminal activities starting from the age of 30 and details
relating to eleven cases mentioned in the grounds of detention.
It is not in dispute that in one case he has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine
years. He had been acquitted in two cases and four cases are
pending against him wherein he was granted bail by the
courts. It is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority that in spite of his continuous activities causing
threat to maintenance of public order, he was getting bail one
after another and indulging in the same activities. In such
circumstances, based on the relevant materials and satisfying
itself, namely, that it would not be possible to control his
habituality in continuing the criminal activities by resorting to
normal procedure, the detaining authority passed an order
detaining him under Act 12 of 1985."
51. Herein, from the FIRs as mentioned in the proposal, it is apparent that
in Chakulia P.S. Case No. 35/2024 dated 06.05.2024, petitioner was
found involved in recovery of 66.9 Kg of Ganja and further, in Mandu
(Kuju) P.S. Case No.161/2022 dated 18.07.2022 petitioner was found
involved in recovery of 700 kg of Ganja and also in Arwal Police
Station (Bihar) Case No. 51/2024 dated 04.02.2024, petitioner was
involved in recovery of 582 Kg of Ganja.
52.Thus, from the aforesaid proposal, it is evident that the petitioner is
habitually involved in offences relating to Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic substance, and further, on the basis of subjective
satisfaction, the detaining authority has arrived at conclusion that in the
interest of society, the petitioner must remain in jail so that he cannot
disturb public order in any manner and the said observation is according
2026:JHHC:153-DB
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 suffer from an error.
53. Issue No.II is answered accordingly.
54. This court, therefore, is of view that order of detention dated
30.07.2025, contained in Memo No.18/PITNDPS-09/2025-3087,
Ranchi (Annexure-4) issued by the Respondent No.3-Principal
Secretary Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, requires no interference.
55. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed.
56. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Dated: 06/01/2026
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Rohit/-A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06.01.2026
