NISHAR HASSAN ALIAS NISHU vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (Cr.) (DB) No.326 of 2026
Nishar Hassan @ Nishu, aged about 34 years, son of Nadim Hassan, resident
of R/o-Plot No.847, South Park, Near T.O.P, Bishtupur, P.O & PS-Bishtupur,
Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. ……………… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary having its office at Project
Building, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
2. Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, PO-Dhurwa,
PS-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, PO &
PS-Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, PO & P.S-Sakshi,
Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.
….………… Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the Resp-State of Jharkhand: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV
Mr. Suman Marandi, AC to SC-IV
-------
C.A.V on 24.08.2026 Pronounced on 01/09/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present amended writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the Order dated 07.10.2025 contained in Memo No. 622(A)
(Annexure-2) passed by the District Magistrate -cum- Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum (respondent No.3) whereby and
whereunder, the petitioner was put under preventive detention in
terms of Section 12(1) & 12(2) of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act,
2002; and further passed an order dated 19.12.2025 contained in
Memo No. 818(A) (Annexure-3) passed by the District Magistrate -
cum- Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum (respondent No.3)
whereby and whereunder, directing the continued detention of the
petitioner under Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act for another three-month period and further passed an
order dated 19.03.2026 contained in Memo No. 219(A) (Annexure-4)
1
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
passed by the District Magistrate -cum-Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum (respondent No.3) whereby and whereunder, directing the
continued detention of the petitioner under Section 12(1) & (2) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act for another three-month period and
further passed on order dated 25.06.2026 contained in Memo No.
478(A) (Annexure-5) passed by the District Magistrate -Cum- Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, (Respondent No. 3), whereby and
whereunder, directing the continued detention of the petitioner under
Section 12(1) & 12(2) of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, for
further three months dated 07.07.2026 to 06.10.2026..
(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of
order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure-6) 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 of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 dated 26.09.2025 has been
confirmed by the respondent No.2 on behalf of the State Government.
Further, passed an order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure-7) whereby and
whereunder the order of preventive detention has been further
confirmed for additional three months i.e; from 07.01.2026 to
06.04.2026 under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes
Act, 2002. Further, passed an order dated 26.03.2026 (Annexure-8)
whereby and whereunder the order of preventive detention has been
further confirmed for additional three months i.e; from 07.04.2026 to
06.07.2026 under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes
Act, 2002 and further passed on order dated 02.07.2026 (Annexure-
9) passed by Additional Secretory, Department of Home, Prison &
Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2),
whereby and whereunder the order of preventative detention passed
u/s 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, has been
confirmed.
(iii) 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;
AND
(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s) or direction(s) or
order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the
facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to
the Petitioner.”
Factual Aspect :
2. The factual aspect which has been pleaded in the writ petition are
as follows:
2
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
i. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum vide
letter dated 25.09.2025 made a recommendation to Senior
Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, stating that
altogether ten sanhas have been registered against the petitioner and
is indulged in criminal activities and petitioner is an anti-social
element and he has threatened business persons to pay rangdari and
it was apprehended that if the petitioner will be released on bail, he
would be a threat to the public and in the interest of maintaining
peace and public order, the petitioner be detained under Section 12
(1) & (2) of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act,2202 (herein after to
be referred as Act of 2002).
ii. That pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation made by Deputy
Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, the Senior
Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide Memo
No. 1294/DCB letter dated 26.09.2025 addressed to the District
Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur (respondent no.3) made a further recommendation
stating therein that since the petitioner is an anti-social element and
he may cause disruption to peace and public order, as such, petitioner
be detained in the interest of maintaining public peace for three
months.
iii. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum, (respondent No.3) passed an impugned detention order
vide memo no. 622(A) dated 07.10.2025, to detain the petitioner
under Section 12 (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act.
iv. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, passed another order vide Memo No.
3
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
818(A) dated 19.12.2025, again based on the 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.
v. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, passed another order vide Memo No.
219(A) dated 19.03.2026, again based on the 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.
vi. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (respondent No.3) passed an order vide
memo no. 478(A) dated 25.06.2026 on the basis of the
recommendation of S.S.P. and directed the authorities to detain the
petitioner under Section 12 (1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act for a period of three months dated 07.07.2026 to
06.10.2026.
vii. The Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prison &
Disaster Management Government of Jharkhand, (respondent No. 2)
vide memo no. 367/CCA dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure-6) has
confirmed the order of preventive detention dated 07.10.2025, u/s
21(1) and 22 of the Jharkhand Control of Crime Act, 2002 and
accordingly, petitioner has been detained for a period of 3 months,
i.e. from 07.10.2025 to 06.01.2026.
viii. Thereafter, Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prison &
Disaster Management Government of Jharkhand, confirmed the
continued detention of the petitioner from 07.01.2026 to 06.04.2026
4
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
(Annexure-7), 07.04.2026 to 06.07.2026 (Annexure-8) and
07.07.2025 to 06.10.2026 (Annexure-9) under u/s 21(1) and 22 of the
Jharkhand Control of Crime Act, 2002.
ix. The S.S.P, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur had given a list of cases
based upon which the said order of preventive detention was passed
by the respondent No.3 which are:
I. Bodam P.S Case No.39/2024 registered under
sections 109(1), 3(5), 61(2) of B.N.S and 27 of the
Arms Act;
II.Mango P.S Case No.33/2024 registered under
sections 302/120B, 34 IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms
Act;
III.Mango P.S Case No.247/2023 registered under
sections 302/120B, 34 IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms
Act;
IV. Bishtupur P.S Case No.57/2022, registered under
sections 387 and 506 IPC;
V. Bishtupur P.S Case No..99 of 2022, registered under
sections 25(1-B),26 of Arms Act; and
VI. Sonari P.S Case No.220/2021 registered under
sections 307, 34, 120B IPC and section 3/4 of
Explosives Substance Act.
x. In all the aforesaid cases the petitioner has been granted regular
bail.
3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders 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:
4. Mr. Pran Pranay, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order:
5
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
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.2-Additional 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 12.03.2026, by the Senior Superintendent
of Police, East Singhbhum.
ii. It has been contended that in the initial recommendation of
Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 26.09.2025, there is
reference of altogether six criminal cases being Bodam P.S Case
No.39/2024, Mango P.S Case No.33/2024, Mango P.S Case
No.247/2023, Bishtupur P.S Case No.57/2022, Bishtupur P.S
Case No.99/2022 and Sonari P.S Case No.220/2021, in which
the petitioner has been granted regular bail. But without
considering the said fact, the impugned detention order has been
passed. 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
6
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
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 02.07.2026 (Annexure-9), 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 in which the petitioner has been granted bail by the
competent Court of law. Such mechanical approval, without due
verification of material facts, clearly demonstrates mala fide
intent, arbitrariness, and high-handedness on the part of the State
authorities in passing the impugned orders.
vii. It has been contended that so far as the Station Diary Entries
( Sanhas ) are concerned, it is an admitted case that those have not
culminated in any criminal case. Merely entering Station Dairy
entry alleging some act cannot be the ground for a detention and
if the acts alleged in these entries were cognizable offenses, the
7
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
State was legally obligated to file a First Information Report.
Therefore, passing of the impugned detention order by the
District Magistrate relying on the sanhas entries cannot be
justified.
viii. It has been contended that mere pendency of criminal cases and
sanhas cannot be a ground for detention under Section 12(1) &
(2) of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act as that can be dealt with
the ordinary criminal law and on this ground alone, detention
order is illegal.
ix. 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 as 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 long.
x. 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
detention has been passed without following the due
procedure of law.
xi. 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,
8
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
instead of availing other lawful remedy, has resorted to the
drastic measure of preventive detention, thereby curtailing the
personal liberty of the petitioner.
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 since
long 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 contended that the petitioner was not informed about
his right of representation before the detaining authority and the
same is a mandate as provided by the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act,2002.
xv. It has been contended that the petitioner tried to send a
representation to the Detaining Authority but 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 biased attitude of the Jail Authorities.
xvi. It has been contended that the grounds for imposing such
extraordinary measure of Preventive Detention along with the
details must be supplied to the detenu in order to give him a fair
chance for his defense by way of representation as guaranteed by
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
xvii. It has been contended that he petitioner in the instant case was
not supplied with the copies of the Letters or Memos forwarded
9
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
by the SSP, East Singhbhum. The petitioner was only handed
over the copy of the Order passed by the District Magistrate and
the copy of the order confirming the Preventive Detention issued
from the office of the Additional Secretary, Department of
Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand.
xviii. It has been contended that the petitioner was produced before the
Advisory Board on after a lapse of 21 days, i.e ,17.11.2025 which
again is de-hors the provision of law under the Jharkhand Control
of Crimes Act, 2002 which clearly mandates that the exercise be
done within a period of 21 days (3) weeks).
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, based upon
the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned orders dated
07.10.2025, 19.12.2025 and 19.03.2026 as well as the order confirming
the same dated 15.10.2025, 24.12.2025 and 26.03.2026 are liable to be
quashed and set aside, therefore, needs interference by this Court.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:
6. Per contra, Indranil Bhaduri, the learned State counsel 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
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
10
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
his main profession is to collect extortion money from
traders, contractors, builder and not only that he extorts
people of the locality under fear of life and several cases
under Arms Act, murder, extortion etc. due to his criminal
activity have been registered against him 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, the orders impugned are in
accordance with law which requires no interference.
iii. It has been contended that the petitioner is habitual
offender and six cases which have been instituted against
him 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
11
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
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 granting bail to the
detenue is concerned, it is submitted that it is the 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 (2011) 10 SCC 215 .
vi. It has been contended that it was necessary to extend
preventive detention of petitioner in order to control
organized crime in the locality.
7. 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:
8. 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.
12
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
9. 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 grant of bail to the detenue/petitioner in the
cases lodged against him 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):
10. The issue no. (i) is 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?
11. But, before considering the first issue, the statutory provision as
contained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act,2002 needs to be
referred herein.
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
13
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
(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
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
14
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
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
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
15
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
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."
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 passed 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
16
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
"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.
(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
17
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
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.
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, dealing with the first issue whether the criminal activities of
18
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
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
07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), this Court finds that six criminal cases and ten
cases of sanhas are registered in different police stations against the
detenue/petitioner as mentioned in the impugned detention order passed
by the respondent no.3 District Magistrate-cum- Deputy Commissioner,
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, on the recommendations made by the
Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide letter
no.1294 dated 26.09.2025 ( Anexure-1 series).
23. This Court finds from the impugned initial detention order dated
07.10.2025 (Annexure-2) that the following FIRs and sanhas have been
registered against the detenue/petitioner in different police stations:
1. Bodam P.S Case No.39/2024 dated 07.12.2024, registered
under sections 109(1), 3(5), 61(2) of B.N.S and 27 of the Arms Act;
2. Mango P.S Case No.33/2024 dated 03.02.2024 registered
under sections 302/120B, 34 IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms Act;
3. Mango P.S Case No.247/2023 dated 27.08.2023 registered
under sections 302/120B, 34 IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms Act;
4. Bishtupur P.S Case No.57/2022, dated 17.03.2022 registered
under sections 387 and 506 IPC,
5. Bishtupur P.S Case No.99 of 2022, dated 09.05.2022,
registered under sections 25(1-B)A/26 of Arms Act; and
6. Sonari P.S Case No.220/2021 dated 23.12.2021 registered
under sections 307, 34, 120B IPC and section 3/4 of Explosives
Substance Act.
7. Olidih (Mango) OP PS Sanha No.22/2025, dated 24.08.2025;
8. Olidih (Mango) OP PS Sanha No.46/2025 dated 28.08.2025;
19
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
9. Sitaramdera PS Sanha No.21/25, dated 21.08.2025;
10. Sitaramdera PS Sanha No.28/25, dated 26.08.2025;
11. Bishtupur P.S Sanha No.43/25, dated 28.08.2025;
12. Bishtupur P.S Sanha No.50/25, dated 01.09.2025;
13. Azadnagar PS Sanha No.24/25, dated 11.08.2025;
14. Azadnagar PS Sanha No.18/25, dated 18.08.2025;
15. Mango PS Sanha No.24/25, dated 24.08.2025; and
16. Mango PS Sanha No.18/25, dated 26.08.2025
24. Hence, from the FIRs and sanhas mentioned in the impugned
detention order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), this Court finds that six
FIRs were registered against the detenue/petitioner in addition to 10
sanhas in different police stations in the district of Jamshedpur.
25. But, on perusal of the six pending cases registered against the
detenue/petitioner, as mentioned in the impugned detention order dated
07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), it is apparent that the crime committed by the
detenue/petitioner ranges to murder, attempt to murder, extortion etc. and
cases under Arms Act and Explosives Substance Act have 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.3, while passing
the impugned detention order 07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), 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.
20
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
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
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 six FIR registered against the petitioner, petitioner has been
enlarged on bail in all cases. 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:
21
2026:JHHC:26601-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.”
22
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
33. Hence, the 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 orders,
passed by the detaining authority Respondent No. 3 vide Memo No.
622(A) dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), the sequence of criminal cases
registered against the detenue are as follows:
1. Bodam P.S Case No.39/2024 dated 07.12.2024,
registered under sections 109(1), 3(5), 61(2) of B.N.S and 27
of the Arms Act;
2. Mango P.S Case No.33/2024 dated 03.02.2024 registered
under sections 302/120B, 34 IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms Act;
3. Mango P.S Case No.247/2023 dated 27.08.2023
registered under sections 302/120B, 34 IPC and u/s 27 of the
Arms Act;
4. Bishtupur P.S Case No.57/2022, dated 17.03.2022
registered under sections 387 and 506 IPC,
5. Bishtupur P.S Case No..99 of 2022, dated 09.05.2022,
registered under sections 25(1-B) A/26 of Arms Act; and
23
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
6. Sonari P.S Case No.220/2021 dated 23.12.2021
registered under sections 307, 34, 120B IPC and section 3/4
of Explosives Substance Act.
35. In the present case, it is not in dispute that in the aforesaid
criminal cases registered against the detenue/petitioner in different police
station of district of East Singhbhum, he has been enlarged on bail but it
is also not in dispute that in all the aforesaid criminal cases the trial is
going on.
36. On going through the impugned detention order, passed by the
detaining authority Respondent No. 3 vide Memo No. 622(A) dated
07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), this Court finds that while passing the
impugned detention order, the detaining authority respondent no.3 had
considered the proposal of respondent no.4-Senior Superintendent of
Police, East Singhbhum, which was sent to the detaining authority
Respondent No. 3 vide memo no. 1294 dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure-1
series).
37. In the impugned detention order, the detaining authority
respondent no.3 had taken note of the proposal of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, that the detenue/petitioner is
an antisocial notorious criminal, allegedly involved in offences of
extortion, murder, kidnapping and offences involving Arms Act and
detenue had been to jail for several times and out of fear nobody comes
forward to depose against him in the Court, during the trial. The detenue/
petitioner is in jail and from jail, he was preparing notorious gang and for
this petitioner was recruiting new boys and from jail, with aid of his
henchman, he was extorting money from businessman and builder of the
area and there was an atmosphere of fear among the public.
24
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
38. It has also been brought on record by the authorities that Bodam
P.S Case No.39/2024 dated 07.12.2024, registered under sections 109(1),
3(5), 61(2) of B.N.S and 27 of the Arms Act, was orchestrated by the
detenue/petitioner from aboard, consequently, the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India, cancelled his Visa and issued a Look Out
Circular. He was subsequently arrested at Indira Gandhi International
Airport, New Delhi, on 20.05. 2025, and sent to jail.
39. Further, this Court has gone through ten Sanhas registered
against the detenue/petitioner mentioned in the impugned detention order
and finds that 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.
40. Hence, releasing on bail of the detenue/petitioner in six criminal
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.
41. 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.
42. In the present case, the authority concerned while passing the
impugned detention order which was passed on 07.10.2025(Annexure-2)
25
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
has taken into consideration the entire history of accusation against the
petitioner and only thereafter has passed the order of detention.
43. Hence, the satisfaction has been arrived by the detaining
authority bearing in mind existence of live and proximate link between the
past conduct of the detenue/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) .
44. Accordingly issue no. (ii) is hereby answered.
Re: issue no.(iii) :
45. Regarding this issue, i.e., whether grant of bail to the
detenue/petitioner in the criminal cases registered against him is ground
for his release from the prevention detention passed under 12(2) of the
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002?
46. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
detenue/petitioner has been enlarged on bail in all the criminal cases
lodged against him and the said cases were relied by the detaining
authority while passing the impugned order of detention dated 07.10.2025
(Annexure-2) and hence, detention order cannot be sustained.
47. This Court finds that in the impugned detention order dated
07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), there is reference of six criminal cases
registered against the detenue/petitioner and ten numbers of sanahas .
48. In the aforesaid context, ongoing through the writ petition, this
Court finds that out of six criminal cases registered against
detenue/petitioner, he has been enlarged on bail in all the aforesaid cases
and the cases are pending for trial.
26
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
49. Hence, so far as enlargement on bail of the detenue/petitioner in
pending criminal cases registered against him is concerned, this Court
finds that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that
in spite of his continuous activities causing threat to maintenance of public
order and in such circumstances, based on the relevant materials and
satisfying itself, that it would not be 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.
50. Further, enlargement on bail of the detenue/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 competent authority anticipating the criminality of the concerned
and it would be evident from the accusation made in the impugned
detention order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), passed by the Respondent
No.3-Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, East Singhbhum,
51. 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 that 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
27
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
hence, the detenue’s appeal was dismissed. Further in paragraph-20 of the
aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court had noted the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order
against the detenue, for ready reference Paragraph-17 and 20 of D.M
Nagaraja Versus Government of Karnataka and others (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
28
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
criminal activities by resorting to normal procedure, the detaining
authority passed an order detaining him under Act 12 of 1985."
52. In the present case, from the impugned detention order dated
07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), it is apparent that crime committed by the
detenue/petitioner ranges to murder, attempt to murder, extortion, and
offences under Arms Act and Explosive Substance Act have also been
registered against the petitioner. In addition to that, it has been reported
that the petitioner orchestrated the incident of firing and other criminal
activities while residing abroad; consequently, the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India, cancelled his Visa and issued a Look Out
Circular. He was subsequently arrested at Indira Gandhi International
Airport, New Delhi, on 20.05.2025, and sent to jail.
53. The detenue/petitioner has also provided tabular chart in his writ
petition, wherein detenue/ petitioner has shown a list of criminal cases
registered against him and on perusal, it appears that six cases are still
pending against him and all the six cases were registered against the
detenue/petitioner in the year 2021,2022,2023 and 2024, one after another,
but, the detenue/ petitioner did not remorse his criminality.
54. Even, from the recommendation of the respondent no. 4-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 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.
29
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
55. The authority concerned while passing the impugned detention
order on 07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), has taken into consideration the entire
history of accusation against the petitioner and only thereafter has passed
the order of detention.
56. Thus, from the impugned detention order dated 07.10.2025
(Annexure-2), 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 and
Explosives Substance Act have 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 suffer from an error.
57. Accordingly, Issue No.(iii) is hereby answered.
58. 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.
59. 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. 622(A) dated 07.10.2025
(Annexure-2) the copy of the detention order has been served to the
detenue/ petitioner as finds mention in the last page of the impugned order
30
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
of detention and the petitioner in his writ petition has also admitted that
he was handed over the copy of the order passed by the District
Magistrate( i.e. the detaining authority).
60. Further, ongoing 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, rather it has
been said that the petitioner tried to send a representation to the Detaining
Authority but the same was refused by the Jail Authorities and it was
communicated to him that the same would not be forwarded. But in this
regard, the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence
which was communicated to him by the concerned Jail Authority.
61. 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.
62. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, is
of the view that the orders of detention need no interference.
63. Accordingly, the detention order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure-2)
which was extended time to time vide order dated 19.12.2025
(Annexure-3), order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure-4) and order dated
25.06.2026 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent no.3 and the order
dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure-6) confirming the detention order dated
07.10.2025 (Annexure-2), order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure-7)
confirming the extension order dated 19.12.2025(Annexure-3), order
dated 26.03.2026 (Annexure-8) confirming the extension order dated
19.03.2026 (Annexure-4) and order dated 02.07.2026 (Annexure-9)
31
2026:JHHC:26601-DB
confirming the extension order dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure-5) passed by
the respondent no.2-Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prison
and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, requires no
interference by this Court.
64. Consequent thereto, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
65. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Sudhir
Dated: 01/09/2026.
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
Uploaded on 03/09/2026.
32