NAGESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dtd. 4/9/2024 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum whereby an order under Sec. 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, and order of preventive detention has been passed against the petitioner for three months till 3/12/2024. Further, the petitioner has also challenged the order dtd. 13/9/2024, whereby the order passed under Sec. 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act dtd. 4/9/2024 has been confirmed. By way of amendment, the order dtd. 21/10/2024 of the Government of Jharkhand has been challenged whereby the Government of Jharkhand has confirmed the order after consultation with the Advisory Board.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are no materials to detain the petitioner under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. He submitted that the preventive detention is bad and is without application of mind. He argued that mere pendency of criminal cases, that too involving offence which are not heinous in nature, cannot be a ground to detain this petitioner. As per the petitioner, he is not an anti-social element as defined under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. Taking a plea of maintenance of law and order or on the ground of controlling criminal activities or illegal activities, a person cannot be detained.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents contended that there are sufficient number of cases pending against the petitioner and the cases pending against the petitioner are under Chapter XVI and Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, thus, this petitioner has been rightly detained in terms of Sec. 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. He argued that since the Advisory Board has given opinion that there are sufficient grounds for detention of the petitioner, petitioner's detention was accordingly confirmed. He submitted that the order was passed after application of mind. It has also been mentioned that there are 9 (nine) criminal cases pending against the petitioner and two Station Diary Entries were made and all the offences are heinous in nature. It is submitted by the State-respondents that the petitioner is a threat to the society as also to the public order and if the petitioner comes out of jail, he will be a threat to common person. Thus, the order of detention needs to be confirmed.