Jharkhand High Court: In a criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order dated 04-09-2024 by the District Magistrate, East Singhbum whereby the petitioner was put under preventive detention as per Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (‘Act’), a Division Bench of Ananda Sen, J.* and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 04-09-2024 along with the orders dated 13-09-2024 and 29-11-2024 by the Additional Secretary of department of the Prisons and Disaster Management.
Background
By way of the present petition, the petitioner had also challenged orders dated 13-09-2024 and 29-11-2024 passed by the Additional Secretary of the department of Prisons and Disaster Management whereby the order dated 04-09-2024 was confirmed and further extended to 03-03-2025, respectively.
The petitioner submitted that no case was made out to detain him as he was neither a habitual offender nor an anti-social element as per Section 2(d) of the Act. The petitioner also said that the officials of the district were trying to convert a ‘law and order’ problem into a ‘public order’ problem for harassing him.
The petitioner submitted that if the cases against him are scrutinized in light of the affidavit submitted by him, it would suggest that in three cases out of them either the final form had been submitted, or he had been acquitted. The petitioner also submitted that he was on bail and the State had not filed any application for cancellation of his bail.
The State submitted that there were pending criminal cases against the petitioner and it was necessary to detain him as the Station Diary Entries suggested that he was a threat to the general public of the locality and society as a whole. It was also said that the impugned order mentioned the importance of keeping the petitioner in custody for conducting assembly elections of the State peacefully and to control the crime rate in the area.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted four cases against the petitioner wherein either the final form had been submitted in favour of the petitioner or he had been granted bail. It was said that apart from these four, the remaining cases culminated in a ‘law and order’ problem and it could not be said that there was disturbance of public order.
The Court referred to certain cases decided by the Supreme Court wherein it was said that a person can only be considered as a threat to the public order if he creates ruckus by his behaviour and creates terror in the minds of the public at large. However, the Court stated that this was missing in the present case.
Further, the Court found that the cases of 2016 and 2023 were criminal in nature, whereas, the other pending case was regarding fraudulent purchase and sale of government land which suggested that the petitioner was not ‘anti-social’ as per the definition of the Act and could not be said to be a habitual offender.
The Court made reference to Shaik Nazneen v. State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 633 wherein it was held that the State is not without remedy in case the detenu is a menace to the society and that taking shelter under the preventive detention law is not the proper remedy.
The Court stated that the Station Diary Entries had not culminated into any criminal case and that merely entering said entry wherein some acts are alleged cannot be the ground to detain a person. The Court found it surprising that if the acts mentioned in the Station Diary Entries were criminal and cognizable in nature, then why had the State not filed any First Information Report (‘FIR’) regarding the same.
Thus, the Court concluded that the Station Diary Entries were made only for detaining the petitioner without any basis and that if it is accepted that he needs to be detained for proper conduction of assembly elections, it would amount to giving unbridled sweeping power to the administration to detain any person under the Act during the time of election. This, the Court said, would be nothing but playing with the liberty of the citizens.
The Court noted that the election process in the State was already over and said that the liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed even on the pretext of holding fair and proper elections. Lastly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order dated 04-09-2024 along with the orders dated 13-09-2024 and 29-11-2024.
[Ganesh Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 4367, Decided on 20-12-2024]
*Order by Justice Ananda Sen
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner — Advocate Pran Pranay
For Respondents — Manoj Kumar, G.A. III
Buy Constitution of India HERE
