Jharkhand High Court
Aman Singh @ Aman Shekhar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (Cr.) (DB) No.748 of 2025
-----
Aman Singh @ Aman Shekhar, aged about 27 years, son of Anil
Kumar Singh, resident of 34, Nanak Nagar, Tinplate, P.O. & P.S.-
Golmuri, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary having it
office at Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur,
District. - Ranchi.
2. Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prison &
Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, having its
office at Project Bhawan, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S- Jagarnathpur,
District - Ranchi.
3. The District Magistrate -Cum- Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, District
- East Singhbhum.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum,
P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, Town-Jamshedpur, District - East
Singhbhum. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA-III
C.A.V on 19.01.2026 Pronounced on 03/02/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
"a. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure-2) contained in Memo No. 316(A) passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 3) directing the detention of the petitioner under Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act for a period of three months and further passed an order dated 30.07.2025 contained in Memo No. 486(A) (Annexure-3) and further passed an order dated 30.10.2025 contained in Memo No. 694(A) (Annexure-4) directing the continued detention of 1 2026:JHHC:2792-DB the petitioner under Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act for another three-month period;
AND b. For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 08.07.2025 through Memo No. 05/CCA/01/33/2025-242/CCA (Annexure-5) passed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand (respondent No.2) whereby and whereunder the order of preventive detention passed u/s 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 has been confirmed by the respondent No.2 on behalf of the State Government i.e., from 14.05.2025 to 13.08.2025. Further, passed an order dated 11.08.2025 through Memo No. 05/CCA/01/33/2025-285/CCA (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder the order of preventive detention has been further confirmed for additional three months i.e; from 14.08.2025 to 13.11.2025 and further passed an order dated 07.11.2025 through Memo No. 05/CCA/01/33/2025/392/CCA (Annexure-7) and further confirmed the continued detention of the petitioner for an additional three months, i.e., from 14.11.2025 to 13.02.2026, under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
AND C. Upon quashing the aforesaid orders passed under Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, the petitioner may be directed to be released immediately in terms of provisions of law."
Factual Aspect:
2. The factual aspect which has been pleaded in the writ petition are as follows:
(i) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide letter dated 21.04.2025, made a recommendation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur that a total of 2 2026:JHHC:2792-DB eight cases and five sanhas had been registered against the petitioner and that he was involved in criminal activities and considered an anti-social element. It was apprehended that if the petitioner were to be released on bail, he would pose a threat to the public. Therefore, in the interest of maintaining peace and public order, it was recommended that the petitioner be detained under Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act,2002(hereafter to be referred as Act,2002).
(ii) Pursuant to the recommendation made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide Letter No. 494/DCB dated 26.04.2025, addressed to the District Magistrate-cum-
Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur recommended that the petitioner, being an anti-social element, may cause disruption to public peace and order, and therefore, he should be detained in the interest of public safety.
(iii) The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 3), passed an order vide Memo No. 316(A) dated 14.05.2025 on the basis of the recommendations made by Respondent No. 4, directing the detention of the petitioner under Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand 3 2026:JHHC:2792-DB Control of Crimes Act for a period of three months.
(iv) The Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2), vide order dated 08.07.2025 through Memo No. 05/CCA/01/33/2025- 242/CCA, confirmed the order of preventive detention passed under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. Accordingly, the petitioner was detained for a period of three months.
(v) The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide Letter No. 878/DCB dated 14.07.2025, addressed the District Magistrate- cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, informing that the Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, vide order dated 11.08.2025 through Memo 05/CCA/01/33/2025- 285/CCA, had extended the petitioner's detention under the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, for a further period of three months (from 14.08.2025 to 13.11.2025). In view of this, it was recommended that the detention of the petitioner be continued as he may cause disturbance to public peace and order.
(vi) The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, passed another order vide Memo No. 486(A) dated 30.07.2025, again based on 4 2026:JHHC:2792-DB recommendations made by respondent No.4, ordering the detention of the petitioner under Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act for a further period of three months.
(vii) The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide Letter No. 1379/DCB dated 07.10.2025, once again addressed the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, stating that the Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, order dated 07.11.2025 through Memo No. 05/CCA/01/33/2025/392/CCA had extended the detention of petitioner for another three months (from 14.11.2025 to 13.02.2026) under the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002. Accordingly, it was recommended to extend the detention of petitioner in the interest of maintaining public peace and order.
(viii) The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, passed an order vide Memo No. 694(A) dated 30.10.2025, directing the continued detention of the petitioner under Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act for another three-month period.
(ix) The Additional Secretary, vide order dated 11.08.2025 through 05/CCA/01/33/2025-285/CCA, 5 2026:JHHC:2792-DB Memo No. confirmed the extension of the detention of petitioner for another three months, i.e., from 14.08.2025 to 13.11.2025 and vide order dated 07.11.2025 through Memo No. 05/CCA/01/33/ 2025/392/CCA, confirmed the continued detention of the petitioner for an additional three months, i.e. from 14.11.2025 to 13.02.2026, under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders of detention and orders of extension of detention, the present writ petition has been preferred.
Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner:
4. Mr. Pran Pranay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order:
(i) It has been contended that the petitioner has been illegally detained on the false allegation as the impugned order has been passed by the same authority without any addition of any criminal case.
(ii) 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 Crime Control Act is improper use of Delegated Authority beyond three months [Section 12(2) of Jharkhand Crime 6 2026:JHHC:2792-DB Control Act,2002], that the delegation of power under Section 12(2) is valid only for three months, and unless re-delegated by fresh notification, the District Magistrate's extension of the detention beyond that period is ultra vires. The use of stale or lapsed delegation renders the continued detention illegal.
(iii) It has been contended that the detention order is based upon non- application of mind by detaining authority as it acted mechanically.
(iv) It has been contended that the settled law as laid down in the case of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and others; (2023)9 SCC 587 has not been followed which emphasized satisfaction has to be arrived bearing in mind existence of live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and material which is not stale.
(v) 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 Crime Control Act is violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, i.e., failure to communicate grounds or permit representation, the petitioner was not given an effective opportunity to make a representation, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
7
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
(vi) 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 Crime Control Act, 2002, is without any application of mind. 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.
(vii) It has been contended that the impugned detention order gives absolutely no finding with respect to the present petitioner being an anti-social element.
(viii) It has been contended that the term 'anti-social element' has a specific meaning and has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. The inclusion of the petitioner within the scope of anti-social element mandates him habitually committing certain offences.
(ix) It has been contended that according to the provision under section 12(2), it is mandatory to record the reason, same is evidentially missing in the present case. As such, the order of detention has been passed without following the due procedure of law.
(x) It has been contended that the act of the respondents in passing the impugned order under the 8 2026:JHHC:2792-DB provisions of section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, has not taken into consideration that S.S.P, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur had given a list of eight cases based upon which the said order of preventive detention was passed by the respondent No.3 and out of eight cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in three cases, three cases have been quashed and in two cases petitioner has been granted bail and further he has not committed any recent criminal act that justifies preventive detention.
(xi) Learned counsel has relied on Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Shaik Nazneen v. Telangana and others; (2023) 9 SCC 633 and submitted that State should have seek for cancellation of his bail. But the State has taken shelter of preventive detention which amounts to punitive, not preventive, action which is impermissible under preventive detention jurisprudence.
(xii) 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 Crime Control Act is, is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law as detention is based on Station Diary Entries (Sanhas) as well as FIR.
9
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
(xiii) It has been contended that no valid reason has been shown for non- compliance with safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution, including, timely communication of grounds of detention, opportunity to make representation, etc. which are lacking in the present case.
(xiv) The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, needs interference by this Court. Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:
5. Per contra, Mr. Deepankar, learned AC to GA-III appearing for the respondent-State to defend the impugned order 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 Crime Control Act, 2002 as the petitioner is involved in eight criminal cases relating to attempt to commit murder, theft, arms act, house breaking, cheating and extortion and, as 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, 10 2026:JHHC:2792-DB the orders impugned is in accordance with law which requires no interference.
(iii) It has been contended that although the petitioner has been granted bail in two cases and has been acquitted in some of the cases but by taking into consideration that the petitioner is habitual offender, the orders of extension of detention has 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 detention 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 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.
(vi) It has been contended that the impugned order of detention was extended from 14.11.2025 to 13.02.2026. The present petitioner is involved in various illegal and criminal activities which is evident from the 11 2026:JHHC:2792-DB institution of various FIRs against him.
(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 further in accordance with provision laid down under section 21(1) and section 22 of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.
6. 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
7. 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 petitions and the counter affidavits.
8. The issues which require consideration herein are -
(i) Whether representation of the petitioner was not
forwarded by the jail authorities to the
Government, and hence, the jail authorities acted mala fidely.
(ii) Whether the criminal activities of petitioner come under the purview of definition of ''Anti-social 12 2026:JHHC:2792-DB Elements'' as defined under section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002?
(iii) 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?
Re: Issue No.(i)
9. Submission has been made by the petitioner counsel that representation of the petitioner was not forwarded by the jail authorities to the Government and hence, the jail authorities acted mala fidely.
10. So, a controversy has been raised by the petitioner that his representation was not decided by the Government.
11. At this juncture, Sections 17 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes,2002 needs to be referred herein.
12. Section 17 of the Act,2002 inter alia provides that ground of orders of detention to be disclosed and opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government shall be given to the person affected by the order. Section 17 of the Act, 2002 reads as under-
17. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to person affected by the order. - (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been 13 2026:JHHC:2792-DB made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose.
13. Further, Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that the authority making the order shall as soon as may be communicate the grounds on which the order has been made to the person detained and the detaining authority shall afford to the person detained the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
14. Following the mandate of Article 22(5), provision has been made under section 17 of Jharkhand Control of Crimes,2002, wherein it has been provided that the detaining authority shall communicate the grounds to the detenue on which the detention order has been passed and shall afford to the detenue an earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government.
15. In the present case, this Court finds that at paragraph-22 of the writ petition, petitioner has admitted that copy of the order passed by the District Magistrate and copy of order confirming the preventive dentation was given to him.
16. Hence, one of the constitutional requirements as provided under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India and Section 17 of the Act,2002, as to communicate the grounds to the detenue on which the detention order has been passed has been fulfilled by the State/Respondent, by providing the petitioner, the detention 14 2026:JHHC:2792-DB order dated 14.05.2025(Annexure-2) passed by the respondent no.3 District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, which has been admitted by the petitioner in his writ application itself.
17. Now, the controversy raised by the petitioner at paragraph - 20 of the writ petition that his representation was not forwarded to the detaining authorities, by the Jail Authorities and hence, petitioner has alleged that jail authorities acted maliciously and biasness. Paragraph-20 of the writ petition is quoted herein below for ready reference-
"20. That it is furthermore submitted in this regard that even after all of this when Petitioner tried to send a representation to the Detaining Authority the same was refused by the Jail Authorities and it was communicated to him that the same would not be forwarded. This clearly depicts the malicious and baised attitude of the Jail Authorities."
18. From the aforesaid paragraph of the writ petition, it is evident that petitioner has alleged that his representation was refused by the Jail Authorities and it was communicated to him that the same would not be forwarded.
19. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, this Court has gone through the entire pleading of the writ petition as well as exhibit annexed therein, wherefrom it is apparent that in support of aforesaid statement the petitioner has not placed any cogent evidence and he has just stated that his right of representation has been curtailed by the Jail authorities. 15
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
20. It is settled position that allegation without evidence has no leg to stand and in the absence of cogence the same can only be treated as bald and empty allegation. Further the initial onus to substantiate the allegation of not forwarding the petitioner's representation by the jail authorities lies on the petitioner himself and the petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence to substantiate his allegation.
21. Hence, petitioner himself has failed to prove that his representation was not forwarded by the jail authorities to the Government.
22. At this juncture it would be pertinent to see the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court on the question of burden of proving a case based on allegation of mala fide.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandra Prakash Singh v. Purvanchal Gramin Bank, (2008) 12 SCC 292, has held that it is a proposition of law that the burden of proving mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Mere allegation is not enough. Party making such allegations is under the legal obligation to place specific materials before the court to substantiate the said allegations. There has to be very strong and convincing evidence to establish the allegations of mala fides specifically and definitely alleged in the petition as the same cannot merely be presumed. The presumption under law is in favour of the bona fides of the order unless contradicted by 16 2026:JHHC:2792-DB acceptable material, for ready reference the paragraph-34 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein below-
"34. Thus, as a proposition of law, the burden of proving mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Mere allegation is not enough. Party making such allegations is under the legal obligation to place specific materials before the court to substantiate the said allegations. There has to be very strong and convincing evidence to establish the allegations of mala fides specifically and definitely alleged in the petition as the same cannot merely be presumed. The presumption under law is in favour of the bona fides of the order unless contradicted by acceptable material."
24. Further, in case of E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3, while dealing the issue of mala fide, Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that the Court would be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. Paragraph-92 of the said judgment is being quoted herein below-
"92. Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. Here the petitioner, who was himself once the Chief Secretary, has flung a series of charges of oblique conduct against the Chief Minister. That is in itself a rather extraordinary and unusual occurrence and if these charges are true, they are bound to shake the confidence of the people in the political custodians of power in the State, and therefore, the anxiety of the Court should be all the greater to insist on a high degree of proof. In this context it may be noted that top administrators are often required to do acts which affect 17 2026:JHHC:2792-DB others adversely but which are necessary in the execution of their duties. These acts may lend themselves to misconstruction and suspicion as to the bona fides of their author when the full facts and surrounding circumstances are not known. The Court would, therefore, be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. Such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charge of unworthy conduct against ministers and other high authorities, not because of any special status which they are supposed to enjoy, nor because they are highly placed in social life or administrative set up--these considerations are wholly irrelevant in judicial approach--but because otherwise, functioning effectively would become difficult in a democracy. It is from this standpoint that we must assess the merits of the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner against the second respondent."
(emphasis supplied)
25. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to prove mala fides against the jail authorities and has not produced any clinching evidence and merely imputing allegation against the jail authorities that jail authorities had not forwarded his representation, is not fit to be accepted.
26. Be that as it may, every case of preventive detention needs to be placed before the Advisory Board constituted. It is only after the Advisory Board finds that there is sufficient cause for detention, detention order can be confirmed by the State Government.
18
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
27. In the counter affidavit, respondent has stated that Advisory Board has given its opinion on 24.06.2025 finding sufficient ground for detention of the petitioner.
28. Accordingly, by order dated 08.07.2025(Annexure-5), the respondent no.2 under section 21(1) and section 22 of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, had confirmed the impugned original detention order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure-
2) passed by the respondent no.2.
29. Accordingly, Issue No.(i) is answered against the petitioner. Re: Issue No.(ii) and Issue No.(iii)
30. Since both these issues are interlinked, as such, are being taken up together for its consideration.
31. But before considering these issues, the statutory provisions as contained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes,2002 needs to be referred. The relevant provisions which require consideration are Sections 2(d) and section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes,2002, which are necessary to be referred herein.
32. "Anti-social Element" has been defined in section 2(d) of the Act,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 19 2026:JHHC:2792-DB
(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.
33. Further, Section 12 of the Act,2002 empowers the State Government to detain a person, 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.
(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 20 2026:JHHC:2792-DB modification that, for the words "twelve days", the words "fifteen days" shall be substituted.
34. Hence, 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.
35. So, section 12(1) 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.
36. In the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions, the factual aspect of the present case is to be considered in order to consider these issue as formulated herein above.
37. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, the petitioner has challenged the order of preventive detention dated 21 2026:JHHC:2792-DB 14.05.2025 (Annexure-2) passed under section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crime Act,2002 by the respondent no.3 District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur and also the subsequent orders 30.07.2025 and 30.10.2025 extending the period of detention.
38. The petitioner has also challenged orders dated 08.07.2025,11.08.2025 and 07.11.2015 passed under section 21(1) and section 22 of the Act,2002 by the Respondent No.2 Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand wherein detention order and subsequent orders extending the period of detention were also confirmed.
39. On going through the original detention order dated 14.05.2025(Annexure-2), we find this detention order was passed by the respondent no.3 District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, on the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide Letter No. 494/DCB dated 26.04.2025, wherein involvement of the petitioner in eight criminal cases and five cases based on sanha is mentioned.
40. We find from recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide Letter No. 494/DCB dated 26.04.2025, following eight FIRs registered against the petitioner in the Golmuri Police Station and Sidhgoda Police Station:
22
2026:JHHC:2792-DB
(i) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-208/2019 dated 26.10.2018 under sections 323/356/379/34 of IPC.
(ii) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-110/2019 dated 20.06.2019 under sections 420/120B of IPC
(iii) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-99/2015 dated O1.04.2015 under sections 147/148/149/427/448 of IPC
(iv) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-172/2019 dated 23.08.2019 under sections 452/354(kha)/323/307/379/506/427/34 of IPC
(v) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-67/2020 dated 31.05.2020 under sections 341/323/307/506/384/388/34 of IPC
(vi) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-149/2018 dated 02.11.2018 under sections 323/341/379/504/506/427/34 of IPC
(vii) Golmuri P.S.Case No.-118/2022 dated 05.09.2022 under sections 324/326/307/34 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act
(viii) Sidhgoda P.S.Case No.-175/2019 dated 23.09.2019 under sections 341/323/34 of IPC.
41. It is evident that various cases have been registered against the petitioner in the district of East Singhbhum. Out of the said eight FIRs, in Golmuri P.S.Case No.-67/2020 dated 31.05.2020 and Golmuri P.S.Case No.-118/2022 dated 05.09.2022, the petitioner is on bail and in the remaining other cases, the petitioner has been acquitted or case has been quashed.
42. On perusal of pending cases against the petitioner, we find from detention order dated 14.05.2025(Annexure-2) that in 23 2026:JHHC:2792-DB Golmuri P.S.Case No.-67/2020 dated 31.05.2020, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner inter alia under section 307 and section 384 of IPC. Further, in Golmuri P.S.Case No.- 118/2022 dated 05.09.2022, charges sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under section 302/120B IPC and under section 25(1B)(a)25(A)/26/27/35 of Arms Act.
43. Hence, from the FIRs and charge sheet mentioned in the detention order dated 14.05.2025(Annexure-2), it indicates that crime committed by the petitioner ranges to murder, attempt to murder, extortion etc. and the cases under Arms Act has also been registered against the petitioner.
44. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that petitioner habitually commits offences punishable under section Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and hence comes under the purview of anti-social element as defined in section 2(d)(i) of the Act 2002.
45. Further the question of subjective satisfaction has also been taken as the ground of non-consideration of order of bail, acquittal and quashing of the case against the petitioner. The ground of bail, acquittal and quashing of the case against the petitioner, 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 24 2026:JHHC:2792-DB competent authority anticipating the criminality of the concerned and it would be evident from the accusation made in the paragraph-15 of the writ petition wherein two pending criminal cases against the petitioner has also been mentioned, as has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph, wherein he is on bail, but, whatever allegation has been made against the writ petitioner that is of serious in nature.
46. In present case, on perusal of two pending cases against the petitioner i.e. Golmuri P.S.Case No.-67/2020 and Golmuri P.S.Case No.-118/2022, both are related to year 2020 and 2022 respectively and are concerning the offences under sections 302,307, 384 of IPC and offence under Arms Act, which are very grave in nature.
47. The authority concerned while passing the impugned detention order which was passed on 14.05.2025 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. Hence, judgment of Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and others(supra), relied on by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case.
48. Further, the case of Shaik Nazneen v. Telangana and others; (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner 25 2026:JHHC:2792-DB wherein learned counsel has submitted that State should have seek for cancellation of bail of the petitioner is also not applicable in the case in hand as petitioner habitually commits offences punishable under section Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code as mentioned in section 2(d)(i) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002.
49. Further it is apparent that the detaining authority respondent no.3 while passing the detention order 14.05.2025 (Annexure-2), under section 12 of the Act was satisfied that petitioner if released from jail will act in manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
50. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid factual aspect is of the view that respondent authorities after being satisfied from the material available on record has considered that the petitioner comes under purview of ''Anti-social Elements'' as defined under section 2(d)(i) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 and detention of petitioner is required to maintain public order and while arriving the said satisfaction, the authority concerned has followed all the constitutional mandate therefore, order of detention requires no inference by this Court.
51. Accordingly, Issue No.(ii) and Issue No.(iii) are hereby answered.
52. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the orders of detention need no interference.
53. Accordingly, the detention order dated 14.05.2025 26 2026:JHHC:2792-DB (Annexure-2) and the subsequent orders 30.07.2025 and 30.10.2025 extending the period of detention, passed by the respondent no. 3 and orders dated 08.07.2025,11.08.2025 and 07.11.2015 passed under section 21(1) and section 22 of the Act,2002 by the Respondent No.2 Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand wherein detention order and subsequent orders extending the period of preventive detention were also confirmed, requires no interference.
54. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
55. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
I agree. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Date : 03/02/2026
Birendra / A.F.R.
Uploaded On: - 04/02/2026
27