GANESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 4/9/2024 contained in Memo No.317(A) passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum whereby the petitioner was put under preventive detention in terms of Sec. 12(1) and 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. The petitioner has also challenged the order dtd. 13/9/2024 passed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder the order of preventive detention passed under Sec. 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 dtd. 4/9/2024 has been confirmed. The petitioner, by way of amendment has also challenged the order dtd. 29/11/2024 passed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder the order of preventive detention has been further extended from 4/12/2024 to 3/3/2025.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made out to detain the petitioner under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. Petitioner is neither an habitual offender nor an anti-social element as defined under Sec. 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. Further, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner is a threat to the society and is a threat to public order. The officials of the District have tried to convert "law and order" problem to that of "public order", and are thus unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. He submits that the cases which have been referred to, if scrutinized properly in the light of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, would suggest that in three out of those cases either final form has been submitted or petitioner has been acquitted. One of the case relate to sale of land, which cannot be said to be of such criminal magnitude, which would disturb the entire "public order" of the area. It has been further submitted that the State has not filed any application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner and he is on bail in the cases.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents submits that there are criminal cases pending against the petitioner and it was necessary to detain the petitioner because of those criminal cases and Station Diary Entries (Sanha). The Station Diary Entries would suggest that the petitioner is involved in several criminal cases and is a threat to general public of the locality and society as a whole. He also submits that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that to conduct peaceful assembly elections of the State and also to control the crime rate in the area, it is necessary to keep the petitioner in custody. Thus, the impugned order was passed. He lastly submits that there is no procedural irregularity in detaining the petitioner.