Jharkhand High Court
Taufique Ansari @ Afroz @ Prakash vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
[2026:JHHC:6680-DB]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) (DB) No.698 of 2025
-----
Taufique Ansari @ Afroz @ Prakash, aged about 35 years, son of
Mojahim Ansari, resident of Village-Kalhapat, P.O. Arru, P.S. Senha,
District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India.
2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue (PITNDPS UNIT), Ministry
of Finance, Government of India, having its office at Room No.156B, 1 st
Floor, North Block, P.O. and P.S. North Block, District-Delhi NCR, New
Delhi.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India having its office at Room No.202, 2nd Floor, Jeevan
Tara Building, Parliament Street, P.O. and P.S. North Block, District-
Delhi NCR, New Delhi.
4. The Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau Ranchi Zonal Unit, having
its office at Near Institute of Management Studies, Hatma, P.O. Hatma,
P.S. Mandar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Superintendent, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail,
Hazaribagh, having its office at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central
Jail, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
Mr. Parth Jalan, AC to ASGI
-------
C.A.V. on 16.02.2026 Pronounced on 12/03/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 14.08.2025 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent no.2, the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue (PITNDPS UNIT), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, directing for detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be Page | 1 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] referred to as the Act,1988) in Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
2. During pendency of the instant writ petition, fresh order was passed on 12.12.2025 by which the detention has been extended for a period of one year from the date of detention, i.e. 26.09.2025 which has also been challenged by filing interlocutory application being I.A. No. 17251 of 2025 seeking amendment in the writ petition, in the pleading and prayer portion thereof.
3. The said interlocutory application was allowed vide order dated 22.12.2025. The amended writ petition has also been filed. The counter affidavit to the amended writ petition has also been filed. Factual Matrix
4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as under: -
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 has issued the order dated 14.08.2025 in exercise the power conferred under Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act, 1988 with a view to prevent the petitioner from engaging in Illicit Trafficking of NDPS in future and accordingly directed the petitioner to be detained and kept in Hazaribagh Jail. The grounds of detention have separately been issued on 14.08.2025 itself on the basis of the facts brought by the Sponsoring Authority that is Narcotic Control Bureau Ranchi Zonal Unit, wherein, reference of three criminal cases have been made which are as under: -
(i) NCB Ranchi Case No. 03/2020 dated 24.02.2020,
(ii) Senha P.S. Case No. 46/2024 dated 22.06.2024 and
(iii) Nagri P.S. Case No. 138/2024 dated 06.07.2024.
Page | 2 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB]
6. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said letter addressed to the petitioner, it has been mentioned that the authority has referred to and relied upon the document as mentioned in the enclosed list but surprisingly the said list has never been supplied to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was directed to have right to represent against the detention to the detaining authority that is the Central Government as well as the Advisory Board, if he wishes to avail the right which was to be sent through the Jail Authorities.
7. It is the also the case of the petitioner that although the order of detention was passed on 14.08.2025 against the petitioner, however, the petitioner was apprehended on 26.09.2025 and since then the petitioner is being detained in the Central Jail, Hazaribagh.
8. Further, on 26.09.2025, although the signature was obtained on certain documents but neither the order of detention nor the grounds of detention as mentioned in detention order dated 14.08.2025 has been served upon the petitioner. However, when the brother of the petitioner after much search came to know that the petitioner is languishing in jail custody in Hazaribagh then he made an application to the Jailor Hazaribagh on 04.10.2025 after meeting with the petitioner in the Jail and requested to supply the copy of the charge-sheet, which has been submitted by the NCB Official to the Central Jail Authority, Hazaribagh.
9. Thereafter, on receipt of the said letter dated 04.10.2025 the Jail Authorities provided a copy of the detention order dated 14.08.2025 and the letter dated 14.08.2025 addressed to the petitioner which contains the grounds of detention.
Page | 3 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB]
10. It is the specific case of the petitioner that if at all the petitioner who has been put into jail custody on the basis of the detention order dated 14.08.2025 then, in terms of Section 3(3) of the PITNDPS Act, the grounds of detention has to be served upon the petitioner not later than 05 days and in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than 15 days from the date of detention. The detention order and grounds of detention have been served upon the petitioner on an application dated 04.10.2025, given by the brother of the petitioner to the jailor and thereafter, ground of detention was provided and hence there was laps of more than 05 days. So far as the, exception provided under- Section 3 (3) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 is concerned, there is no reason recorded or communicated to the petitioner for delay in serving the grounds of detention and as such on this score alone the grounds of detention are vitiated.
11. Subsequently, when the brother of the petitioner came to meet with the petitioner on 27.10.2025 then again, a representation was given to the Jail Authority whereupon the order as contained in letter dated 14.10.2025 has been supplied to the brother of the petitioner.
12. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of India vide letter dated 14.10.2025 communicated to the Principal Secretary Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi with regard to the reference addressed to the Chair-person and Members of the State Advisory Board mentioning therein that the petitioner has been detained on 26.09.2025 in pursuance to the detention order dated 14.08.2025 issued under-Section 3 (1) PITNDPS Act, 1988 for seeking the report in opinion of the State Page | 4 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] Advisory Board Jharkhand in terms of Section 9 (c) of the PITNDPS Act 1988.
13. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the aforesaid three criminal cases under the NDPS Act, the Detaining Authority has given a finding that it clearly establish that the petitioner is actively involved in trafficking of NDPS and a habitual offender and accordingly it is being observed that the presence of the petitioner in the society is a threat to the innocent person and the activities are pre-judicial to the society and mentioning the said grounds, the detention order dated 14.08.2025 has been passed.
14. Subsequently, the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 12.12.2025 confirming the detention order dated 14.08.2025 directing him to be detained for a period of one year from the date of his detention, i.e., 26.09.2025.
Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner:
15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned decision: -
(i) The writ petitioner has illegally been confined without any subjective satisfaction of the competent authority as also the Advisory Board has confirmed the decision of confinement without taking into consideration the issue of subjective satisfaction of the competent authority.
(ii) The issue of subjective satisfaction, in the facts of the present case, is relevant since the writ petitioner was made accused in connection with the cases of illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. In the detention order dated 14.08.2025, Page | 5 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] there is reference of three criminal cases, i.e., NCB Ranchi Case No.03/2020; Senha P.S. Case No. 46/2024 and Nagri P.S. Case No.138 of 2024 but in all the said three criminal cases, the petitioner had been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 11.12.2024,11.04.2025 and 23.01.2025 respectively, therefore, it is a case where the sanctioning authority cannot be said to have the subjective satisfaction.
(iii) It is a case where the petitioner although has been ordered to be detained vide order dated 14.08.2025 but the petitioner was taken into custody on 26.09.2025 i.e., after lapse of about more than one month which raises considerable doubt in the case of detaining authorities, otherwise, the petitioner would have been detained in confinement in order to effect the order of detention.
(iv) It has been contended that even the ground of absconding will be of no any aid to the State and if that ground is said to be available then it was the bounden duty of the State to take recourse to Section 8 of the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, wherein the procedure has been laid down to deal with the absconders in order to effect the order of detention.
(v) It has been contended that neither the order of detention nor the grounds of detention as mentioned in the order dated 14.08.2025 has been served upon the petitioner. However, when the brother of the petitioner made an application to the Jailor Hazaribagh on 04.10.2025 requesting to supply the copy of the charge-sheet, which has been submitted by the NCB Official to the Central Jail Authority Hazaribagh, thereafter, the Jail Authorities provided a Page | 6 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] copy of the detention order dated 14.08.2025 and the letter dated 14.10.2025 addressed to the petitioner which contained the grounds of detention.
(vi) It has also been contended that the order pertaining to preventive detention ought to have beeen served within a period of 05 days and in exceptional circumstances, not later than 15 days but the same has been served upon the petitioner on the request of the brother of the petitioner on 04.10.2025 which is after the lapse of 05 days.
(vii) It has also been contended that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India vide letter dated 14.10.2025 communicated to the Principal Secretary Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi with regard to the reference addressed to the Chair-Person and Members of the State Advisory Board mentioning therein that the petitioner has been detained on 26.09.2025 in pursuance of the detention order dated 14.08.2025 for seeking a report in opinion of the State Advisory Board Jharkhand in terms of Section 9 (c) of the PITNDPS Act 1988. But, as per the provision contained under Article 22 to the Constitution of India and Section 9 of the PITNDPS Act, the Advisory Board is to submit its report and opinion before 11.12.2025 and the said period has been expired at present.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333; Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and others, (2023)9 SCC 587; Roshini Devi Vs. The State of Telangana and others [SLP(CRL) No. 18223 of 2025]; Nenavath Page | 7 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] Bujji and others vs. State of Telangana and others, (2024) 17 SCC 294 and Dhanyam vs. state of Kerala & ors. [ Criminal Appeal No. 2897 of 2025].
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on judgments passed by this Court in case of Sikandar Mahtha vs. State of Jharkhand, the Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand and Others, [W.P. (Cr.) No. 933 of 2024(DB)]; Bipin Bihari Singh @ Dipu Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & ors. [W.P. (Cr.) (DB) No. 662 of 2025] and Rampravesh Gupta @ Ramu Saw @ Ram Pravesh Sao@ Ramu Sao vs. The State of Jharkhand & ors. [W.P. (Cr.) (DB) No. 133 of 2025].
18. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the order of detention, therefore, suffers from error and hence not sustainable in the eye of law.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the State:
19. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned ASGI appearing for the respondents, has submitted on the basis of the counter affidavit that there is no error in the impugned decision, since, the petitioner was found to be habitual in trafficking of the narcotics which would be evident from the impugned order wherein three cases registered under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner.
20. It has been contended that so far the argument which has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that due to the non-arrest of the petitioner for a period of about more than one month, the order of detention should not have been given effect to is concerned, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the same since the petitioner was evading arrest and only after a coordinated investigation, the petitioner had been arrested.
Page | 8 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB]
21. Learned counsel has submitted that it is also incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that on 26.09.2025, the petitioner was made to sign certain document and no documents were supplied to him since the grounds of detention was served upon the petitioner on the very same day, i.e., on 26.09.2025 at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh and further the relied upon documents were also supplied to him and the same would be evident from the panchnamas dated 26.09.2025 and 29.09.2025 .
22. It has also been submitted that the information pertaining to the arrest of the petitioner was also given to his wife, namely, Mahazbin Khatun.
23. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that it is also incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that the order pertaining to preventive detention has been served upon the petitioner on the request of the brother of the petitioner on 04.10.2025, i.e., beyond the period of 05 days since the impugned action has been taken in complete compliance with Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988.
24. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that so far as requirements under Section 9 of the PITNDPS Act, 1988, is concerned details were sent to the Advisory Committee on 14.10.2025 and the Advisory Board had already furnished its report on 17.11.2025 and the opinion was received by the Central Government on 09.12.2025 and after considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Central Government issued the confirmation order on 12.12.2025 which has been served upon the petitioner on 14.12.2025.
25. Learned counsel has submitted that it is also incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that there is no subjective satisfaction of the Page | 9 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] detaining authority rather, each and every aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the competent sanctioning authority which on being deliberated by the Advisory Board has upheld the decision. When two authorities have upheld the issue of confining the petitioner in detention, it cannot be said that there is no subjective satisfaction.
26. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, based upon the aforesaid grounds, have submitted that it is, therefore, not a case where the order of detention is said to suffer from an error.
Analysis
27. 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 petition and the counter affidavits.
28. The issues which require consideration herein are -
(i) Whether detention order and grounds of detention was not communicated to the petitioner and hence, violates section3(3) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988?
(ii) Whether there is unreasonable delay in detaining the petitioner?
(iii) Whether the grant of bail to the petitioner is ground for his release from the preventive detention passed under section3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988?
29. All the issues since are interlinked, as such, the issues are being taken up together for its consideration. But, before considering the said issues, the statutory provision as contained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Page | 10 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 with its object and intent needs to be referred herein.
30. 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 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.
31. The relevant provisions which require consideration are 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 Page | 11 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] 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, 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.
Page | 12 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB]
8. Powers in relation to absconding persons.-(l) If the appropriate Government has reason to believe that a person in respect of whom a detention order has been made has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed, that Government may-
(a) make a report in writing of the fact to a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction in the place where the said person ordinarily resides; and thereupon the provisions of sections 82, 83, 84 and 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply in respect of the said person and his property as if the order directing that he be detained were a warrant issued by the Magistrate;
(b) by order notified in the Official Gazette direct the said person to appear before such officer, at such place and within such period as may be specified in the order; and if the said person fails to comply with such direction, he shall, unless he proves that it was not possible for him to comply therewith and that he had, within the period specified in the order, informed the officer mentioned in the order of the reason which rendered compliance therewith impossible and of his whereabouts, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence under clause (b) of sub-section (I) shall be cognizable.
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 Page | 13 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] 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 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."
Page | 14 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB]
32. It is evident 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 31st 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.
33. Further, the "illicit Traffic" has been defined as under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1988 which reads hereunder as:-
"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-
Page | 15 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] (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:"
34. Hence, Section 3 of the Act, 1988 provides power to make order 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.
35. Section 8 provides by conferment of power upon the appropriate Government that if the Government has reason to believe that a person in respect of whom a detention order has been made has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed, that Government may - (a) make a report in writing of the fact to a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction in the place where the said person ordinarily resides; and thereupon the provisions of sections 82, 83, 84 and 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply in respect of the said person and his property as if the order directing that he be detained were a warrant issued by the Magistrate; (b) by order Page | 16 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] notified in the Official Gazette direct the said person to appear before such officer, at such place and within such period as may be specified in the order; and if the said person fails to comply with such direction, he shall, unless he proves that it was not possible for him to comply therewith and that he had, within the period specified in the order, informed the officer mentioned in the order of the reason which rendered compliance therewith impossible and of his whereabouts, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
36. Further, 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 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.
37. 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 Page | 17 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] 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.
38. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions; the factual aspect of the present case is to be considered in order to consider the issue as formulated hereinabove.
39. Further, 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 the arbitrary exercise on the part of the State to snatch away the personal liberty of an individual.
40. 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 9 of the Act, 1988, by taking care of that the period of detention does not exceed one year as Page | 18 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] 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 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 para-2 Apex Court has held as follows-
"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 compliance with constitutional and statutory norms and requirements."
41. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, it is the admitted case that the order of detention was passed on 14.08.2025 and petitioner was detained on 26.09.2025 and after confirmation by the Advisory Board, thereafter, by order dated 12.12.2025, detention order dated 14.08.2025 was confirmed and under section 11 of the Act, petitioner was ordered to be detained for a period of one year from his date of detention i.e. 26.09.2025.
Re: Issue No. I
42. Regarding issue no. I, i.e. whether detention order and grounds of detention was not communicated to the petitioner and hence, violates Page | 19 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] section 3(3) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, the learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically submitted that grounds of arrest was not communicated to the petitioner and only when brother of the petitioner had made application to the Jailor on 04.10.2025, then the Jail Authorities had provided a copy of detention order dated 14.08.2025, which contained the grounds of detention and hence, grounds of detention was communicated to the petitioner after lapse of 05 days whereas petitioner was detained on 26.09.2025 and hence, section 3(3) of the Act,1988 has been violated.
43. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the grounds of detention was served upon the petitioner on the very same day, i.e., on 26.09.2025 at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh and further the relied upon documents were also supplied to him and the same would be evident from the panchnamas dated 26.09.2025 and 29.09.2025. It has also been submitted that the information pertaining to the arrest of the petitioner was also given to his wife, namely, Mahazbin Khatun.
44. To answer the aforesaid issue, this Court has gone into the paragraph-8 of the writ application, wherein it has been specifically stated that when brother of the petitioner after much search came to know that the petitioner was languishing in jail custody in Hazaribagh Jail, then brother of the petitioner had made an application on 04.10.2025 (Annexure-3) to the Jailor, Hazaribagh, and requested to supply the copy of the chargesheet.
45. But, going through the said application dated 04.10.2025 (Annexure-3), said to be filed by the brother of the petitioner, this court finds that in the Page | 20 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] aforesaid application, it is specifically mentioned - "Photo copy of F.No. U11011/39/2025 PIT NDPS of NCB office is attached".
46. Hence, therefrom it is evident that the aforesaid number "F.No. U11011/39/2025 PIT NDPS", mentioned in the application dated 04.10.2025 (Annexure-3), written to the Jailor by the brother of the deceased, is also mentioned in the impugned detention order of the petitioner dated 14.08.2025 (Annexure-2).
47. So, question arises when detention order was not given to the petitioner then how brother of the petitioner came to know and had mentioned the detention case no i.e. "F.No. U11011/39/2025 PIT NDPS", pertaining to the petitioner, in the aforesaid application dated 04.10.2025 (Annexure-
3), written to the Jailor, Hazaribagh.
48. Hence, the statement made in the writ application that brother of the petitioner after much search came to know that the petitioner was languishing in jail custody in Hazaribagh Jail, is falsified due to the reason that petitioner's family had a copy of detention order pertaining to the petitioner bearing number "F.No. U11011/39/2025 PIT NDPS" issued from the NCB office, which was annexed in the application dated 04.10.2025(Annexure-3), written to the Jailor, Hazaribagh by the brother of the petitioner.
49. Further, this Court finds that in the counter affidavit, respondents have filed two panchnama dated 26.09.2025 and 29.09.2025, as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit.
50. On going through the panchanma dated 26.09.2025, this Court finds that panchnama dated 26.09.2025, was prepared at Central Jail, Hazaribagh and in this panchnama, it is also noted that Taufique Ansari (petitioner) Page | 21 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] was allowed to make conversation to his wife namely Mahazbin Khatun. The panchnama dated 26.09.2025, also bears the signature dated 26.09.2025, of Superintendent, NCB, Ranchi.
51. Further, going through the content of panchanma dated 29.09.2025, this Court finds that in the panchanma dated 29.09.2025, it is noted that a team of NCB, Ranchi, had reached the Central Jail, Hazaribagh, under the leadership of Manohar Manjul, Superintendent, NCB, Ranchi and the petitioner was provided one set of RUD (Relied upon Documents) containing 185 pages and this panchanma also bears the signature dated 29.09.2025, of Manohar Manjul, Superintendent, NCB.
52. Hence, from application dated 04.10.2025(Annexure-3), written to the Jailor, Hazaribagh by the brother of the petitioner and panchnama dated 26.09.2025, this court is of the view that ground of detention has already been provided to the petitioner within stipulated time.
53. Further, from panchnama dated 29.09.2025(Annexure-A), this Court is of view that petitioner was provided a copy of Relied upon Documents, on 29.09.2025, by NCB, Ranchi.
54. Hence, petitioner has failed to prove his allegation that ground of his detention was communicated to him after expiry of statutory period of 05 days from the date of his detention on 26.09.2025.
55. Therefore, this Court is of view that the ground of detention was communicated to the petitioner within five days of his detention and there is no violation of Section 3(3) of Act,1988, so far as case of the petitioner is concerned.
56. Accordingly, Issue No. I has been answered.
Re : Issue No.II Page | 22 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB]
57. Now coming to the issue no. II i.e. whether there is unreasonable delay in detaining the petitioner and in this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that detention order of the petitioner was passed on 14.08.2025 and petitioner was detained on 26.09.2025 i.e. after lapse of one month and twelve days, which itself proves that there was no need to pass preventive detention order against the petitioner.
58. Learned counsel has also submitted that if the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself, respondents could have taken the recourse to Section 8 of the Act,1988.
59. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Others(supr) and has submitted that delay of one month and twelve days caused in arresting the petitioner is unreasonable delay and hence, the impugned detention order may be quashed.
60. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein the judgment of Sushanta Kumar Banik(supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On going through this 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.
61. In this case Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention and actual arrest of the detenu, 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. The relevant paragraph-21 of the judgment is quoted herein below-
Page | 23 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] "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)
62. Thus, from the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that if there is any delay in detaining the accused, 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.
63. In the case in hand, detention order dated 14.08.2025 was issued by the Respondent No.2, Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue (PITNDPS UNIT), Ministry of Finance, Government of India and then, petitioner was detained on 26.09.2025 and hence there is delay of one month and twelve days in detaining the petitioner.
64. In this regard respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner was evading arrest and could be only taken in custody after a coordinated investigation.
65. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the present case, this Court is of the view that delay of one month and twelve days caused in detaining the Page | 24 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] petitioner is not unreasonable and has been satisfactorily explained by the respondents.
66. Accordingly, Issue No.II has been answered. Re:Issue No. III
67. Regarding the third issue i.e. whether the grant of bail to the petitioner is ground for his release from the preventive detention passed under section3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, and in this regard petitioner has raised ground that petioner has been granted bail by the Court of law, and the said cases were relied by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention dated 14.08.2025 and hence, detention order cannot be sustained.
68. This Court finds that in the detention order dated 14.08.2025, there is reference of three criminal cases against the petitioner- NCB Ranchi Case No.03/2020 dated 24.02.2020; Senha P.S. Case No. 46/2024 dated 22.06.2024 and Nagri P.S. Case No.138 of 2024 dated 06.07.2024.
69. In all the said three criminal cases, the petitioner had been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 11.12.2024 in NCB Ranchi Case No.03/2020; order dated 11.04.2025 passed in B.A. No. 2009 of 2025 in Senha P.S. Case No. 46/2024 and order dated 23.01.2025 passed in B.A. No. 10954 of 2024 in Nagri P.S. Case No.138 of 2024.
70. Hence, release of the petitioner on bail, in all these aforesaid pending cases 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 Page | 25 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] possible to control his habituality in continuing the criminal activities by resorting the normal procedures, the Detaining Authority had passed an order detaining him under the Act,1988.
71. Further, 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 in the impugned detention order dated 14.08.2025(Annexure-2) passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue (PITNDPS UNIT), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, wherein three pending criminal cases registered under the NDPS Act is mentioned.
72. 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 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 in 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 Page | 26 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] detenue, for the ready reference Paragraph-17 and 20 of D.M. Nagaraja(supra) case is 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 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."
73.In the present case, from the impugned detention order dated 14.08.2025, it is apparent that in NCB Case No. 03/2020 dated Page | 27 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] 24.02.2020, in Senha P.S. Case No. 46/2024 dated 22.06.2024 and in Nagri P.S. Case No. 138/ 2024 dated 06.07.2024, petitioner is involved recovery of 90 Kg,144.350Kg and 206.00Kg respectively of ganja.
74.From, the impugned detention order dated 14.08.2025, it also appears that oldest case registered against the petitioner was in the year 2020 being NCB Case No. 03/2020. Thereafter, petitioner did not repent and again after four years in 2024, petitioner was found indulge in trafficking of the narcotics and two successive cases being Senha P.S. Case No. 46/2024 and Nagri P.S. Case No. 138/ 2024, was registered against the petitioner.
75.The authority concerned while passing the impugned detention order which was passed on 14.08.2025 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.
76.Thus, from the impugned detention order dated 14.08.2025, 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 to conclusion that the well-organized manner in which such pre- judicial activities have been carried on and nexus between dates of incidents and passing of the detention order and the said observation is according to the ratio led down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Page | 28 [2026:JHHC:6680-DB] case of D.M Nagaraja Versus Government of Karnataka and others(supra) therefore, the said observation of the detaining authority cannot be said to be suffer from an error.
77. Accordingly, Issue No.III has been answered.
78. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the orders of detention need no interference.
79. Accordingly, the detention order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 and order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No.3, confirming the detention order dated 14.08.2025 and order for detention of the petitioner for one year from the date of his detention, are sustained and upheld.
80. The instant writ petition stands dismissed.
81. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands dispose of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
12th March, 2026
Saurabh
A.F.R.
Uploaded on 13.03.2026
Page | 29