The Jharkhand High Court set aside a preventive detention order and held that merely making Station Diary Entry alleging some acts cannot be the ground to detain a person.

The liberty of a citizen must be kept at the highest pedestal and the same cannot be curtailed on the whims and wishes of any of the officials of the State, the court added.

The High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum whereby the petitioner was put under preventive detention in terms of Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava said, “Further, the ground that for proper conduction of Assembly Elections, petitioner needs to be kept in detention, is absolutely not a ground for detention. If this becomes a ground, then the same will amount to giving unbridled, uncanalised sweeping power to the administration to detain any person under the Act during the time of election, it will be nothing, but playing with the liberty of citizens.”

Advocate Pran Pranay represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate Manoj Kumar represented the Respondents.

It was the case of the Petitioner that no case was made out to detain the petitioner under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act as the Petitioner is neither a habitual offender nor an anti-social element as defined under Section 2(d).As per the Petitioner, the officials of the District tried to convert “law and order” problem to that of “public order”, and were unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. It was also submitted that in three out of those cases, either final form was submitted or petitioner was acquitted. One of the cases related to the ale of land, which couldn’t be said to be of such criminal magnitude, which would disturb the entire “public order” of the area. It was further submitted that he was on bail in the cases.

The Respondent-State on the contrary submitted that criminal cases were pending against the petitioner and the Station Diary Entries suggested that the petitioner was involved in several criminal cases and was a threat tothe general public of the locality and society as a whole.

The Bench took note of the fact that the Petitioner had been kept under the preventive detention by the impugned order and later on the same was extended. The State had mentioned 7 cases against the petitioner. Out of those 7 cases, in two of them, either the final form in favour of the petitioner was submitted or the Petitioner was granted bail.One of them related to the allegation that the petitioner had sold some government land fraudulently but this case was not of such nature to hinder public order.

As per the Bench, the remaining cases which remained against the petitioner were ones which culminated in “law and order problem” and it couldn’t be said that there was disturbance of public order.

Reference was made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Arjun S/o Ratan Gaikwad versus The State of Maharashtra & Others (2024) wherein it has been observed that a person has to create ruckus by his behavior and continue with such activities, in a manner to create a terror in the minds of the public at large, then only he is a threat to the public order. The Bench found this element to be missing in the present case.

Coming to the phrase “anti-social element” as defined under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, the Bench further placed reliance upon Abhimanyu Singh @ Sintu Singh versus The State of Jharkhand & Others (2024) wherein it has been observed that a person should be habitual in committing offences, which would create negative impact and terror in the mind of the public at large and the society.

The Bench then came back to the aspect of Station Diary Entries and noted that those had not culminated in any criminal case.

“Merely entering Station Diary Entry alleging some acts cannot be the ground to detain a person. It is surprising that if the acts mentioned in the Station Diary Entries are criminal acts and are cognizable in nature, then why the State has not filed any First Information Report. Law provides that if cognizable offence is committed and is brought to the knowledge of any authority, First Information Report should be lodged”, the Bench said.

The Deputy Commissioner is the Head of the Prosecution of the District and he has passed the impugned order and has referred to Sanhas (Station Diary Entries). It was a mystery for the Bench as to what prevented the State to file a First Information Report if the acts mentioned in the Entries made out any criminal offence. “We, thus, conclude that those Station Diary Entries are made only for the purpose of keeping the petitioner in detention without there being any basis”, it added.

The Court further discarded the contention of the Respondent that the petitioner needed to be kept in detention for proper conduction of Assembly Elections. “If this becomes a ground, then the same will amount to giving unbridled, uncanalised sweeping power to the administration to detain any person under the Act during the time of election, it will be nothing, but playing with the liberty of citizens. Further, in this case, the Assembly Elections in the State are already over now after formation of an Elected Government”, it said.

The Bench further added, “Liberty of a citizen of our country must be kept at the highest pedestal. Same cannot be curtailed on the whims and wishes of any of the officials of the State. Not only there has to be a good reason to curtail the said liberty, but that reason has to be strong enough and the evidence should be impeccable. With the fall of a hat, a citizen cannot be deprived of his personal liberty. Further, the election process in the State is already over. Even on the pretext of holding fair and proper election, liberty of the citizen cannot be curtailed.”

Thus, allowing the Writ Petition, the Bench set aside the impugned order of the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum.

Cause Title: Ganesh Singh @ Nishant Singh v. The State of Jharkhand (Case No.:W.P.(Cr.) No. 926 of 2024)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Pran Pranay

Respondents: Government Advocate Manoj Kumar

Click here to read/download Order


Jharkhand High CourtJustice Ananda SenJustice Pradeep Kumar SrivastavaPreventive Detention

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.