Chattisgarh High Court
Lucky Mahar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:11943-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 141 of 2025
Lucky Mahar S/o Late Sohan Mahar Aged About 28 Years R/o Shivpara,
Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Durg, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner And Detaining Authority Durg Division, Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/03/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed by Commissioner-Cum- Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 Detaining Authority, Durg, in Criminal Case No. 13 of 2024, whereby the Commissioner, Durg, while exercising the powers under Section 3 r/w Section 11 of the Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988, passed the order for detaining the petitioner in jail for the period of six months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that against the petitioner who is a permanent resident of Shivpara, Durg, District Durg, there are certain criminal cases pending, including two cases registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act, 1985). On 07/09/2024, the Station House Officer, Durg, issued a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Durg, requesting action against the petitioner under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PIT NDPS Act, 1988), citing the previous criminal cases pending against the petitioner. Acting upon the said request, the Superintendent of Police, Durg, further forwarded the matter to the Commissioner, Division Durg, highlighting the alleged involvement of the petitioner in offences under the NDPS Act, 1985 and seeking preventive action under the PIT NDPS Act, 1988. Pursuant to the request, the respondent authorities issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to provide an explanation as to why action should not be taken against him under the PIT NDPS Act, 1988. The petitioner, in compliance with the said notice, duly submitted a detailed and reasoned reply, addressing all allegations and asserting that no preventive detention action was warranted against 3 him. However, without proper consideration of the petitioner's reply and merely relying upon the submissions made by respondent No. 1, the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner, directing his preventive detention under the PIT NDPS Act, 1988, which is under challenge in the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the inaction of respondents No. 1 and 2 is unfair, arbitrary and liable to be deprecated. He submits that the impugned detention order directly violates the fundamental right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Preventive detention is an exceptional measure and can only be resorted to in circumstances where no other alternative remedy is sufficient to prevent the alleged unlawful activities of the detenue. The police authorities have already come to the conclusion that the petitioner has become habitual in dealing drugs, whilst the petitioner has clearly stated in its reply that the past cases are pending before the appropriate Court of law, and he has not been found guilty yet. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that they have procured the secret information, following which they are taking the action of the detention order, but only looking to the past records. The impugned order is based on past incidents that do not establish a live and proximate link between the petitioner's previous activities and the present necessity of preventive detention. Preventive detention cannot be justified based on stale allegations, and the detaining authority must demonstrate a compelling and immediate necessity for such extreme action. In the present case, the reliance 4 on old cases without any recent, proximate incidents renders the order legally unsustainable. Present is a case where criminal proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner for the respective crime number, and he has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Courts thus, preventive detention should not be used as a parallel punitive measure. The proper course of action was to allow the criminal justice system to take its due course rather than detaining the petitioner arbitrarily. The detention order dated 24/02/2025 is also impugned because the detaining authority has merely relied on the police recommendations without conducting an independent examination of the necessity of preventive detention. The detention order does not reflect an application of mind to the petitioner's individual case but rather a mechanical approval of the proposal put forth by the police authorities, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside, and the petitioner may be released from jail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submits that the consideration of the Commissioner is based on substantive satisfaction that the petitioner is engaged in the illegal trafficking of drugs, which affects the public at large in the vicinity as well as in the city. As per their own submission, there are certain criminal cases pending, including two cases registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985. Despite that there is allegation against him, he engaged in the similar nature of offence. Though no offence has been registered against the petitioner, but it is a preventive measure under which the petitioner has been detained in jail to prevent the petitioner from 5 engaging in illicit trafficking in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, for which the impugned order has been passed, which is strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of the allegation and also the fact that there are certain criminal cases pending, including two cases of the year 2023 and 2024 registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which are pending before the learned trial Court and there are information that he actively engaged in illegal trafficking of Drugs and to prevent the petitioner from engaging in illicit trafficking in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order. We do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order and to hold that the order passed by the Commissioner suffers from any perversity or illegality.
7. Consequently, we found no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved