Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Mishra @ Himanshu Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Under ... on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (Cr.) (DB) No.39 of 2026
Prakash Mishra @ Himanshu Kumar, aged about 37 years, son of Lakshmi
Narayan Mishra, resident of H. No.135, Mishra Bagan, Jemco Colony, P.O-
Telco, PS-Telco, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prison
and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Bhawan, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, having
its office at Sakshi, PO-Sakshi, P.S-Sakshi, District-East Singhbhum
(Jharkhand).
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum having its office at
Sakshi, PO-Sakshi, P.S-Sakshi, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, East Singhbhum, having its office
at Sakshi, PO-Sakshi, P.S-Sakshi, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
................ Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp-State of Jharkhand: Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II
-------
C.A.V on 17.04.2026 Pronounced on 24/04/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed initially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
"(i) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure-4) contained in Memo No. 411/CCA, issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the detention order dated 17.11.2025, contained in Memo No. 729(A) issued by the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, has been confirmed.
(ii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 17.11.2025, contained in Memo No.729(A) 1 2026:JHHC:12133-DB (Annexure-3), issued under the signature of the District Magistrate-
cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention in purported exercise of powers under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
(iii) For any other appropriate writ, order or direction as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."
2. Thereafter, an amended writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by way of an interlocutory application being I.A No.3002 of 2026 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2026 and the following prayers have been made in the said amended petition:
"(i) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure-4) contained in Memo No. 411/CCA, issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the detention order dated 17.11.2025, contained in Memo No. 729(A) issued by the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, has been confirmed).
(ii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 17.11.2025, contained in Memo No.729(A) (Annexure-3), issued under the signature of the District Magistrate-
cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention in purported exercise of powers under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
(iii) For any other appropriate writ, order or direction as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the detention order dated 17.11.2025 has been confirmed in purported exercise of the powers under Section 21(1) and 22 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
(v) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Government of 2 2026:JHHC:12133-DB Jharkhand, whereby the detention order has been further extended for the period from 17.02.2026 to 16.05.2026 in purported exercise of powers under Sections 21(1) and 22 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002."
Factual Aspect:
3. The factual aspect which has been pleaded in the writ petition are as follows:
i. The petitioner is a convict and is serving sentence at Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi in connection with Telco P.S Case No.562 of 2013.
ii. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum (respondent no.4) vide Memo No.2782/25 dated 11.11.2025(Annexure-1), addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (respondent no.3) recommended initiation of preventive action against the petitioner under Sections 12(ii) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (hereinafter, to be referred as Act of 2002) purportedly to maintain public peace and law and order.
iii. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum (respondent no.3) vide Memo No.1530 dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-
2), addressed to the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (respondent no.2) recommended initiation of preventive action against the petitioner under Sections 12(1) and 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, purportedly to maintain public peace and law and order. iv. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, vide Memo No. 729(A) dated 17.11.2025(Annexure-3), 3 2026:JHHC:12133-DB passed an order of preventive detention against the petitioner for twelve days from the date of issuance of the order, subject to confirmation by the State Government within the said period. It was further directed that upon such confirmation by the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, the period of detention would stand extended for a further period of three months. v. Thereafter, the respondent no.1-Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, vide an order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure-4), contained in Memo No. 411/CCA, has confirmed the order of preventive detention passed against the petitioner vide order dated 17.11.2025. vi. In its recommendation dated 11.11.2025(Annexure-1), by Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum (respondent no.4) it has been stated that the petitioner is a convict in connection with Telco P.S. Case No. 562 of 2013 and is serving sentence in Hotwar Central Jail, Ranchi. But, prior to the said recommendation, the petitioner had already been acquitted by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1158 of 2019, vide judgment and order dated 03.11.2025.
vii. Total 23 cases have been mentioned in the said recommendation dated 11.11.2025(Annexure-1), out of which 10 cases are stated to be registered, while 13 cases are merely shown as Sanha entries recorded at the respective police stations.
viii. Insofar as the registered cases are concerned, the petitioner has been acquitted in four cases, he has been granted bail in five other cases, and one case is presently pending before this Hon'ble Court for consideration of the prayer for bail. However, neither the 4 2026:JHHC:12133-DB recommendation nor the impugned detention order discloses or reflects the status of the said cases against the petitioner, rendering the decision-making process arbitrary and non-application of mind. ix. So far as the station diary entries are concerned, the same have not culminated in the registration of any First Information Report. x. The petitioner is not roaming freely, but has been behind bars for more than a decade. Therefore, the allegation of commission of crimes while in jail custody is wholly improbable, untenable, and contrary to the record.
xi. The petitioner has been behind bars for almost a decade. There is no likelihood that his release would cause any terror in the minds of the people of Jamshedpur. The petitioner cannot be termed an anti- social element within the meaning of Section 2(d) of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act.
xii. Subsequent to filing of the present writ petition, the Under Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, has passed an order dated 31.12.2025 affirming the detention order dated 17.11.2025 in purported exercise of the powers under Section 21(1) and 22 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
xiii. The Under Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, has issued an order dated 02.02.2026, by which the detention order has been further extended for the period from 17.02.2026 to 16.05.2026 in purported exercise of powers under Sections 21(1) and 22 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, which is ex facie illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
5
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of detention, its confirmation and order of extension of the said detention, the present writ petition has been preferred.
Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner:
5. Mr. Rishav Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order:
i. It has been contended that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and an orchestrated attempt has been made by the State authorities to keep the petitioner behind the bars. In the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, to pass the detention order and the impugned detention order passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, which was thereafter, confirmed by the Respondent No.1-Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, there is no independent application of mind with respect to the status of the criminal cases cited in the recommendation dated 11.11.2025(Annexure-2) by the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum.
ii. It has been contended that in the initial recommendation of Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 11.11.2025(Annexure-1), there is reference of Telco PS Case No.562 of 2013, in which petitioner was convicted and imprisoned for life. But, by order dated 03.11.2015, passed in the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1158 of 2019, petitioner has been acquitted, however, Telco PS Case 6 2026:JHHC:12133-DB No.562 of 2013, had been recommended for passing the detention order. Hence, there was no application of mind by the detaining authority.
iii. It has been contended that, it is a case where the detaining authority cannot be said to have the subjective satisfaction, rather, in absence of the material having not been perused since it was not placed before the District Authority, hence, there is lack of subjective satisfaction.
iv. It has been further contended that authorities did not inform and did not provide the petitioner opportunity of his right of representation before passing the impugned orders and hence, there is lack of subjective satisfaction in passing the impugned orders.
v. It is stated that no sufficient ground, as appearing in the order dated 31.12.2025(Annexure-5), is made out and the same is vitiated, inasmuch as from the initial recommendation of Deputy Superintendent of Police, up to passing of the detention order, there was complete non-verification of facts with regard to the cases pending against the petitioner, and all the orders have been passed without independent application of mind and without recording self-sufficient and self-explanatory reasons. vi. At no stage did any authority examine whether the said cases were pending, disposed of, or otherwise relevant. Such mechanical approval, without due verification of material facts, clearly demonstrates mala fide intent, arbitrariness, and high- 7
2026:JHHC:12133-DB handedness on the part of the State authorities in passing the impugned orders.
vii. It has been contended that out of 23 cases as has been mentioned in the recommendation, only 10 cases were registered while 13 cases are merely shown as Sanha entries recorded at the respective police stations. Out of them, the petitioner has been acquitted in four cases being Telco PS Case No.297 of 2012, Telco PS Case No.562 of 2013, Golmuri PS Case No.313 of 2013 and Telco P.S Case No.71 of 2014 whereas he has been granted bail in five cases mentioned being Golmuri P.S Case No.133 of 2024, Telco P.S Case No.96 of 2024, Golmuri P.S Case No.157 of 2024, Birsanangar P.S Case No.88 of 2024 and Birsanagar P.S Case No.93 of 2024, but this fact has been ignored by the detaining authority.
viii. It has been contended that the act of the respondents in passing the impugned order under the provisions of section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 has not taken into consideration that mere registration of police case under several sections, is not sufficient to take away the freedom of the petitioner who is behind the bar since a decade. ix. It has been contended that according to the provision under section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, it is mandatory to record the reason in writing for which it is necessary to extend the detention of the detenu and the same is evidentially missing in the present case. As such, the order of 8 2026:JHHC:12133-DB detention has been passed without following the due procedure of law.
x. It has been contended that when the general provisions of law are adequate to address the alleged situation, there was no justification for taking shelter to the extraordinary provisions of Section 12 of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. The State, instead of availing other lawful remedy, has resorted to the drastic measure of preventive detention, thereby curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner.
xi. It has been contended that respondents have passed the impugned detention order under the provisions of section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, without subjective satisfaction and a mere reference to criminal cases registered against the petitioner, without any independent analysis or assessment of their relevance to public order, demonstrates a non-application of mind.
xii. It has further been contended that the impugned order gives absolutely no finding with respect to the petitioner being an anti- social element.
xiii. It has been contended that the petitioner is behind the bars for almost a decade and he cannot be termed an anti-social element within the meaning of Section 2(d) of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act.
xiv. It has been further contended that the station diary entries disclosed the commission of any cognizable offence, it remains 9 2026:JHHC:12133-DB unexplained as to why the State authorities failed to register First Information Report in accordance with law.
xv. It has been contended that the detention order is based upon non-
application of mind by detaining authority as it acted mechanically under a delegated power in violation of the settled law as laid down in the case of Mallada K. Sri Ram V. State of Telangana and Ors, (2023) 13 SSC 537.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, needs interference by this Court.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:
7. Per contra, Mr. Gaurav Raj, the learned State counsel appearing for the respondent-State to defend the impugned orders has raised the following grounds:
i. It has been contended that the impugned detention order is issued under the provision of section 12(2) of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 as the petitioner is a notorious criminal having many criminal antecedents of serious nature. The petitioner is a notorious criminal and his main profession is to collect extortion money from traders, coaching institutes, transporters and other contractors and not only that he extorts people of the locality under fear of life, several cases of arson, damage to public property, Arms Act, murder etc. due to his criminal activity have been registered against him and, as 10 2026:JHHC:12133-DB such, the present writ petition is not maintainable in the law as well as on facts.
ii. It has been contended that prior to issuance of detention order the petitioner has been given reasonable opportunity to defend himself and, as such, the orders impugned are in accordance with law which requires no interference. iii. It has been contended that the petitioner is habitual offender and he is having total 23 cases out of which 10 cases have been instituted in different police stations under different Sections of Arms Act and BNS and a number of Sanhas are also there against the petitioner. As per the intelligence input received, the petitioner is having deep root in organized crime and in connivance with his other associates of his gang and on his instructions, his associates used to collect extortion from the local people, transporters and businessman though the petitioner is in judicial custody. As such, the orders of extension of detention have been passed and further there is strong possibility of conviction of the petitioner in the said cases. iv. It has further been contended that there is possibility that when the petitioner comes out from the judicial custody he may involve in the illegal and unlawful activity with his associates, since, he has been history of antecedent, thus, the detention order is fully justified in order to maintain public order within the district concerned. v. It has been contended that so far as acquittal or granting bail of the detenue is concerned, it is submitted that is the 11 2026:JHHC:12133-DB subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that in spite of his continuous activities causing threat to maintenance of public order, the detenu was getting bail one after another and indulging in the same activities. In such circumstances, based on the relevant materials and satisfying itself, it would not be possible to control his habituality in continuing the criminal activities by resorting the normal procedures, the Detaining Authority passed the detention order against him as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "D.M. Nagaraja Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors." reported in AIR 2012 SC
295.
vi. It has been contended that it was necessary to extend preventive detention of petitioner in order to control organized crime in the locality as well as in order to reduce the intensity of same.
vii. It has been contended that at first occasion detention order was confirmed after obtaining report from Advisory Board and thereafter on requisition given by the competent authority the same has been extended for a period of 3 months vide order dated 31.12.2025 from 17.11.2025 to 16.02.2026 in accordance with provision laid down under section 21(1) and section 22 of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
viii. It has been further contended that as per maximum permissible detention under section 22 of the Act, the continuation of detention to that limit is statutorily 12 2026:JHHC:12133-DB sanctioned and, hence, the impugned detention order was lastly extended vide order dated 02.02.2026 for a period of 3 months from 17.02.2026 to 16.05.2026.
8. The learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned orders, thus, need no interference and the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis:
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition along with the relevant documents annexed therewith.
10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect the following issues require consideration herein:
i.Whether the criminal activities of petitioner come under the purview of definition of ''Anti-social Elements'' as defined under section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002?
ii.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can it be said that the authorities have got the subjective satisfaction while passing the order of detention?
iii.Whether acquittal and grant of bail to the detenue/petitioner in some cases is ground for his release from the preventive detention passed under 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002?
Re: issue no.(i):
11. But, before considering the first issues, the statutory provision as contained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act,2002 needs to be referred herein.
13
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
12. The relevant provisions which require consideration herein are Section 2(d) and Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes, 2002, (referred herein as Act of 2002).
13. "Anti-social Element" has been defined in section 2(d) of the Act of 2002, which reads hereunder as: -
" 2(d) Anti-social element" means a person who-
(i) either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code;or
(ii) habitually commits or abets the commission of offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956;
or
(iii) who by words or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other grounds whatsoever, feelings of enmity or hatred between different religions, racial or language groups or castes or communities; or
(iv) has been found habitually passing indecent remarks to, or teasing women or girls; or
(v)who has been convicted of an offence under sections 25,26, 27, 28 or 29 of the Arms Act of 1959."
14. From perusal of Section 2(d) of the Act of 2002, it is evident that "anti-social element" is a person who habitually commits or abets offenses listed in Chapters XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or certain other specific crimes. It needs to refer herein that this definition requires a pattern of behaviour, not isolated incidents, and aims to identify individuals whose acts cause alarm or terror among the public, warranting preventive detention to maintain public order.
15. It requires to refer herein that the Act of 2002 was meant to make special provisions for the control and suppression of anti-social elements 14 2026:JHHC:12133-DB with a view to maintenance of public order. It also needs to refer herein that the "Law and Order" problems typically affect only individuals or small groups, whereas "public order" disruptions affect the community's normal functioning on a broader scale often generating fear or anxiety among the general public.
16. It is pertinent to mention herein that the primary element with respect to Section 2(d)(i) of the Act of 2002 seems to be the word "habitual". It would thus mean that a person who is frequently engaged in committing or attempting or abating commission of an offence in terms of Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code would be an anti- social element. In this context, we may refer to the case of Vijay Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1984) 3 SCC 14 wherein the word "habitually" has been sought to be enumerated in the following manner:
"31. It is seen from Section 12 of the Act that it makes provision for the detention of an anti-social element. If a person is not an antisocial element, he cannot be detained under the Act. The detaining authority should, therefore, be satisfied that the person against whom an order is made under Section 12 of the Act is an anti-social element as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. Sub-clauses (ii), (iii) and
(v) of Section 2(d) of the Act which are not quite relevant for the purposes of this case may be omitted from consideration for the present. The two other sub-clauses which need to be examined closely are sub clauses (i) and (iv) of Section 2(d).
Under sub-clause (i) of Section 2(d) of the Act, a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI dealing with offences affecting the human body or Chapter XVII dealing with offences against property, of the Penal Code, 1860 is considered to be an anti-social element. Under subclause (iv) of Section 2(d) of the Act, a person who has been habitually passing indecent remarks to, or teasing 15 2026:JHHC:12133-DB women or girls, is an anti-social element. In both these sub clauses, the word "habitually" is used. The expression "habitually" means "repeatedly" or "persistently". It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit. It connotes frequent commission of acts or omissions of the same kind referred to in each of the said sub clauses or an aggregate of similar acts or omissions. This appears to be clear from the use of the word "habitually" separately in subclause (i), sub-clause (ii) and sub- clause
(iv) of Section 2(d) and not in sub clauses (iii) and (v) of Section 2(d). If the State Legislature had intended that a commission of two or more acts or omissions referred to in any of the sub- clauses (i) to (v) of Section 2(d) was sufficient to make a person an "anti-social element", the definition would have run as "Anti-social element" means "a person who habitually is. ..". As Section 2(d) of the Act now stands, whereas under sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (v) of Section 2(d) a single act or omission referred to in them may be enough to treat the person concerned as an 'antisocial element', in the case of sub-clause (i), sub-clause (ii) or sub- clause (iv), there should be a repetition of acts or omissions of the same kind referred to in sub-clause (i), subclause (ii) or in sub-clause (iv) by the person concerned to treat him as an "anti-social element". Commission of an act or omission referred to in one of the sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) and of another act or omission referred to in any other of the said sub-clauses would not be sufficient to treat a person as an "anti-social element". A single act or omission falling under subclause (i) and a single act or omission falling under sub- clause (iv) of Section 2(d) cannot, therefore, be characterized as a habitual act or omission referred to in either of them. Because the idea of "habit" involves an element of persistence and a tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them they cannot be treated as habitual ones."
16
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
17. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that if a person is not an antisocial element, he cannot be detained under the Act of 2002. The detaining authority should, therefore, be satisfied that the person against whom an order is made under Section 12 of the Act of o2022 is an anti- social element as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. Under sub-clause (i) of Section 2(d) of the Act, a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI dealing with offences affecting the human body or Chapter XVII dealing with offences against property, of the Penal Code, 1860 is considered to be an anti-social element. Further the expression "habitually" means "repeatedly" or "persistently". It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit.
18. It requires to refer herein that Section 12 of the Act of 2002 contains the word "anti-social" which qualifies the section 12 of Act 2002 for passing the order of detention of any individual or others. Section 12 of the Act is the initiation of the process of detaining a person under the Act, for ready reference the same is being quoted herein, which reads as under-
"12. Power to make order detaining certain persons. - The State Government may- (1) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained.
17
2026:JHHC:12133-DB (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may by an order in writing direct, that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) exercise the powers conferred upon by the said sub-section:
Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time.
(3) When any order is made by District Magistrate, he shall forthwith report, the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after the making thereof unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government:
Provided that where under Section 17 the grounds of detention are communicated by the officer making the order after five days but not later than ten days from the date of detention, this sub- section shall apply subject to the modification that, for the words "twelve days", the words "fifteen days" shall be substituted."
19. Thus, from the perusal of Section 12 of the Act of 2002, it is evident that power to make orders detaining certain persons are provided in section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. Section 12(1) provides that if State Government is satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained.
18
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
20. Hence, section 12(1) of the Act empowers the State Government to detain anti-social element if there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person. The anti-social element has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 and section 2(d)(i) of the Act provides that "Anti-social Element" means a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of gang habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code.
21. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is now, reverting to the first issue whether the criminal activities of petitioner come under the purview of definition of "Anti-social Elements'' as defined under section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
22. On going through the impugned detention order dated 17.11.2025(Annexure-3),wherein involvement of the petitioner in 23 criminal cases is mentioned out of which 10 cases are registered and 13 cases are Sanhas registered in different police stations, this Court finds that impugned detention order was passed by the respondent no.-2 Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, on the recommendations made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide letter no. 1530 dated 13.11.2025 ( Anexure-2).
23. This Court finds from the impugned detention order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3) that the following FIRs and Sanhas have been registered against the detenue/petitioner in different police stations : 19
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
1. Telco PS Case No.297/12 dated 18.09.12 under sections 147/148/149/304 IPC and under sections 27 of the Arms Act;
2. Telco PS Case No.562/13 dated 11.12.13 under sections 302/303/120(B)/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act;
3. Golmuri PS Case No.313/13 dated 12.12.13 under sections 25 (1-B) a/26/35 of Arms Act;
4. Telco PS Case No.71/14 dated 12.02.14 under sections under sections 25 (1-B) a/26 of Arms Act;
5. Golmuri PS Case No.133/24 dated 03.10.24 under section 27 of the Arms Act;
6. Telco PS Case No.96/24 dated 16.08.24 under sections 109/324(5)/3(5) BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act;
7. Kanke PS Case No.283/24 dated 29.09.24 under sections 308(3)/308(4)/111(4)/111(5)/238 of BNS;
8. Golmuri PS Case No.157/24 under sections 308(4), 308(5)/111(3)/317(2)/305 of BNS and under sections 25 (1-B) a/26 of Arms Act ;
9. Birsanagar PS Case No.88/24 dated 10.09.24 under sections 109 BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act;
10. Birsanangar PS Case No.93/24 dated 16.09.24 under sections 308(3)/308(4)/61(2) of BNS;
11. Telco PS Sanha No.28/25, dated 29.06.25;
12. Telco PS Sanha No.12/25 dated 02.06.25;
13. Telco PS Sanha No.33/25, dated 09.10.25;
14. Telco PS Diary Entry No.25/25, dated 14.10.25;
15. Telco PS Diary Entry No.13/25, dated 24.10.25;
16. Telco PS Diary Entry No.23/25, dated 04.11.25;
17. Golmuri PS Sanha No.17/25, dated 28.10.25;
18. Golmuri PS Sanha No.14/25, dated 05.11.25;
19. Barma Mines P.S Sanha No.35/25, dated 16.10.25;
20. Barma mines P.S Sanha No.06/25, dated 21.10.25;
21. Barma Mines P.S Sanha No.26/25, dated 04.11.25; 20
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
22. Birsa Nagar P.S Sanha No.24/25, dated 03.11.25;
23. Birsa Nagar P.S Sanha No.25/25, dated 05.11.25.
24. Hence, from the FIRs and Sanhas mentioned in the impugned detention order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3), this Court finds that 10 FIRs were registered against the detenue/petitioner in addition to 13 Sanhas in different police stations. Though, detenue/ petitioner has been acquitted in four cases - Telco PS Case No.297/12 dated 18.09.12; Telco PS Case No.562/13 dated 11.12.13; Golmuri PS Case No.313/13 dated 12.12.13 and Telco PS Case No.71/14 dated 12.02.14.
25. But, on perusal of the six pending cases registered against the detenue/petitioner, as mentioned in the impugned detention order, it is apparent that the crime committed by the detenue/petitioner ranges to murder, attempt to murder, extortion etc. and cases under Arms Act have also been registered against the petitioner.
26. Hence, this Court is of the view that detenue/petitioner is a habitual offender. Detenue/petitioner habitually commits offences punishable under section Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code as defined in section 2(d)(i) of the Act.
27. Further, the detaining authority respondent no.2 while passing the detention order 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3), under section 12(2) of the Act of 2002, was satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was necessary as continuous criminal activities of the petitioner was causing threat to maintenance of public order.
28. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid factual aspect, is of the view that the authority concerned has rightly considered that the act of the detenue/petitioner comes under the purview of the "Anti-social 21 2026:JHHC:12133-DB Elements'' as stipulated under Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the orders of detention on this score need no interference.
29. Accordingly issue no. (i) is hereby answered. Re: issue no. (ii):
30. Regarding this issue, i.e., whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can it be said that the authorities have got the subjective satisfaction while passing the order of detention?
31. Learned counsel for the detenue/petitioner has submitted that out of the 10 cases registered against the petitioner, detenue has been acquitted in four cases being Telco PS Case No.297 of 2012, Telco PS Case No.562 of 2013, Golmuri PS Case No.313 of 2013 and Telco P.S Case No.71 of 2014 and in the remaining cases except one, detenue has been enlarged on bail. But, these materials were not placed before the detaining authority and, hence, it cannot be said that detaining authority had subjective satisfaction before passing the impugned detention order.
32. Before, proceeding further, it would be pertinent to mention the case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain principles to be observed by the Constitutional Court while examining the legality of orders of preventive detention. Paragraph-28 of this judgment is quoted herein below-
"28. In the circumstances of a given case, a constitutional court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine whether: 22
2026:JHHC:12133-DB 28.1. The order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied;
28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute;
28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires;
28.4. The detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body;
28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorised by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case;
28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate;
28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale;
28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached;
28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and 28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to."23
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
33. Hence, Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (supra), on the issue of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has laid down that the order based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied. Hon'ble Apex Court further laid down that the Court may examine that the satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain or is based on material which is stale.
34. In the present case, ongoing to the impugned detention order, passed by the detaining authority Respondent No. 2 vide Memo No. 729(A) dated 17.11.2025(Anneure-3), the sequence of criminal cases registered against the detenue are as follows:
1.Telco PS Case No.297/12 dated 18.09.12 under sections 147/148/149/304 IPC and under sections 27 of the Arms Act;
2.Telco PS Case No.562/13 dated 11.12.13 under sections 302/303/120(B)/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act;
3.Golmuri PS Case No.313/13 dated 12.12.13 under sections 25 (1-B) a/26/35 of Arms Act;
4.Telco PS Case No.71/14 dated 12.02.14 under sections under sections 25 (1-B) a/26 of Arms Act;
5.Golmuri PS Case No.133/24 dated 03.10.24 under section 27 of the Arms Act;
6.Telco PS Case No.96/24 dated 16.08.24 under sections 109/324(5)/3(5) BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act;
7.Kanke PS Case No.283/24 dated 29.09.24 under sections 308(3)/308(4)/111(4)/111(5)/238 of BNS;
24
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
8.Golmuri PS Case No.157/24 under sections 308(4), 308(5)/111(3)/317(2)/305 of BNS and under sections 25 (1-B) a/26 of Arms Act ;
9.Birsanagar PS Case No.88/24 dated 10.09.24 under sections 109 BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act;
10.Birsanangar PS Case No.93/24 dated 16.09.24 under sections 308(3)/308(4)/61(2) of BNS;
35. In the present case, it is not in dispute that in Telco PS Case No.562 of 2013, the detenue/petitioner was inter alia convicted under section 302 of IPC, but, was acquitted by order dated 03.11.2015 passed in the Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1158 of 2019 and in three cases - Telco PS Case No.297 of 2012, Golmuri PS Case No.313 of 2013 and Telco P.S Case No.71 of 2014, the detenue/petitioner was acquitted.
36. Herein the allegations alleged against the petitioner in the present case for the purposes of detention, which is mentioned in the recommendation of the respondent no. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, is that the detenue/petitioner is an antisocial notorious criminal, allegedly involved in offences of murder, kidnapping and extortion of money from contractors, businessmen and transporters by firing bullets and spreading terror in the area. The detenue/ petitioner has made an organized gang by using mobile from the jail and using Whatsapp and internet call and with aid of his henchman, detenue/ petitioner commits extortion of money from businessman, in the area of Jamshedpur. Further, the respondent-authority has also taken into consideration the fact that after receiving news of his release from jail, atmosphere of fear and resentment has been created among the businessmen and contractors of the area, giving rise to a likelihood of disturbance of law and order and public order.
25
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
37. Further, this Court has gone through 13 Sanhas registered against the detenue/petitioner mentioned in the impugned detention order. On perusal of these Sanhas, this Court finds that specific allegation has been made in Sanhas that the detenue/petitioner, who is confined in Hotwar Jail, with aid of his henchmen used to threaten transporters, contractors, businessman for extortion od money and due to fear, no one comes forward to register complaint against the detenue/petitioner.
38. In the present case, the authority concerned while passing the impugned detention order which was passed on 17.11.2025(Annexure-3) 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.
39. Hence, acquittal of the detenue/petitioner in four criminal cases out of the ten cases registered against him, does not dilute the crimes committed by the detenue/petitioner and hence, it cannot be said that detaining authority had no subjective satisfaction, while passing the impugned detention order.
40. In the present case, the factual aspect as has been dealt with hereinabove while deciding the issue, this Court is of view that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the fact in entirety which shows the subjective satisfaction based upon the document as found to be available with the recommending authority which has been accepted by the detaining authority.
41. Further, the, satisfaction has been arrived by the detaining 26 2026:JHHC:12133-DB authority bearing in mind existence of live and proximate link between the past conduct of a petitioner and material which is not stale and is in consonance of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and others(supra).
42. Accordingly issue no. (ii) is hereby answered. Re: issue no.(iii):
43. Regarding this issue, i.e., whether acquittal and grant of bail to the detenue/petitioner in some cases is ground for his release from the prevention detention passed under 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002?
44. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that detenue/petitioner has been acquitted in four cases and in remaining cases he has been enlarged on bail and the said cases were relied by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3) and hence, detention order cannot be sustained.
45. This Court finds that in the impugned detention order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3), there is reference of 23 criminal cases against the detenue/petitioner including the 13 Sanahas.
46. In the aforesaid context, ongoing through the writ petition, this Court finds that out of 10 criminal cases registered against detenue/petitioner, he has been acquitted in four cases and six cases are pending against the petitioner.
47. Hence, so far as acquittal of the detenue/petitioner in some of the cases and his release on bail, in aforesaid pending cases is concerned, this Court finds that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining 27 2026:JHHC:12133-DB 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 had passed an order detaining him under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
48. Further, enlargement on bail of the detenue/petitioner, in some of the cases 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 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3), passed by the Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, East Singhbhum,
49. 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 the 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 the detenue again started indulging in the same type of offences, particularly, threatening the public life, damaging public property, etc. and hence, the detenue's appeal was dismissed. Further in paragraph-20 of the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court had noted the subjective 28 2026:JHHC:12133-DB satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order against the 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 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
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."
50. In the present case, from the impugned detention order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3), it is apparent that crime committed by the 29 2026:JHHC:12133-DB detenue/petitioner ranges to attempt to murder, extortion, offences of organized crime etc. and several cases under the Arms Act a has also been registered against the petitioner.
51. The detenue/petitioner has also provided tabular chart in his writ petition, wherein detenue/ petitioner has stated list of criminal cases registered against him and on perusal, it appears that six cases are still pending against the detenue/petitioner and all the six cases were registered against the detenue/petitioner in the year 2024 one after another, but, the detenue/ petitioner did not remorse his criminality.
52. Even, from the recommendation of the respondent no. 3-Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, and various Sanahas registered against the detenue/petitioner, it is apparent that the detenue/petitioner while confined in jail has made an organized gang by using mobile from the jail and uses his henchmen to commit extortion of money from businessmen, contractor in the area of Jamshedpur and out of fear nobody comes forward to register cases against the detenue/petitioner.
53. The authority concerned while passing the impugned detention order on 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3), 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 the petitioner and material which is not stale.
54. Thus, from the impugned detention order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3), it is evident that the detenue/petitioner is habitually involved in offences which ranges from attempt to murder, extortion, offences of organized crime etc. and several cases under Arms Act have 30 2026:JHHC:12133-DB also been registered against the detenue/petitioner 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 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 be suffered from an error.
55. Accordingly, Issue No.(iii) is hereby answered.
56. Learned counsel for the detenue/petitioner has also taken the point that the authorities concerned did not inform him the grounds of detention as such the vital right has been denied to him.
57. In order to verify the aforesaid contention, this Court has gone through the impugned detention order wherefrom it is evident that the impugned order contained in Memo No. 729(A) dated 17.11.2025(Anexure-3) the copy of the detention order has been served to the detenue/ petitioner as finds mention in the last page of the impugned order of detention. Further going through the writ petition, this Court finds that the detenue/petitioner in his pleading has not pleaded any specific material facts as to not communicating the ground of detention to him.
58. Hence, this Court is of view that the detenue/petitioner has failed to prove by any cogent evidence that he was not communicated the ground of detention and only bald allegation has been levelled against the authorities concerned.
31
2026:JHHC:12133-DB
59. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the orders of detention need no interference.
60. Accordingly, the detention order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent no.2 and the order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure-
4) and order dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure-5), passed by the respondent no.1-Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, confirming the detention order dated 17.11.2025 and subsequent extension order dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure-6) extending the period of preventive detention requires no interference by this Court.
61. Consequent thereto, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
62. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Sudhir Dated: 24/04/2026.
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi AFR Uploaded on 24/04/2026.
32