Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Prakash Chandra Yadav - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Home and Others -Respondents
LPA No. 568 of 2022
Decided On : 02-03-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 22, 226 – Crimes Control Act, 1981 – Section 12(1) ,17, 21 – Defence of Realm Act, 1914 – Regulation 14-B – State of Jharkhand has adopted Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 – Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – British Parliament enacted the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939 – Antisocial element – Order of detention – Offences affecting the human body – Anti-social element – offences of murder, attempt to murder, hurt, grievous hurt, causing grievous hurt to extort property or to compel restoration of property, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, criminal forces, assault, kidnapping, abduction, kidnapping for ransom etc – Similarly, theft, extortion, robbery, dacoity, misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust, receiving stolen property, cheating, mischief, criminal trespass etc – Held, Though there is none, even a remote allegation against the District Magistrate of passing detention order in a biased manner to please political bosses is required to be proved by producing cogent and convincing materials – If allegations of mala fide were to be imputed to Superintendent of Police this needs to be indicated that concept of “transferred malice” cannot be applied in present case – Superintendent of Police who made a recommendation for detaining detenu preventively is not a party-respondent and there is no allegation of mala fide against this officer of making a recommendation against detenu in bad faith – LPA dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mungeri Yadav against whom an order of preventive detention under section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (in short, Crimes Control Act) has been passed on 8th August 2022 by the District Magistrate of the district of Sahibganj.
2. By an order dated 2nd November 2022, W.P.(Cr.) No. 405 of 2022 filed by the detenu challenging the order of detention dated 8th August 2022 has been dismissed by the writ Court holding that (i) all the constitutional safeguards have been complied, (ii) 4-principles relating to representation of the detenu as enunciated in Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, (1970) 1 SCC 219 have been followed, (iii) no case of mala fide has been made out, and (iv) the order of detention is based on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. While dismissing W.P.(Cr.) No. 405 of 2022, the writ Court has gone into the contentions of the parties, the relevant laws and Judicial pronouncements and the materials on record in great details.
3. The writ Court has examined the matter in the following manner:
| S.I. No. | P.S. Case | Under Sections |
| 1 | Taljhari P.S. Case No. 99/2017 | 341/323/504/509/397/337/338/34 of the I.P.C. |
| 2 | Taljhari P.S. Case No. 80/2021 | 175/379/307 of the IPC and 4/54 J.M.M. Rules, 2004 and 21(A) 2116 of the M.M.D.A. Act, 0957 |
| 3 | Taljhari P.S. Case No. 113/18 | 147/148/149/342/323/353/332/336/506/379 of the I.P.C. |
| 4 | Taljhari P.S. Case No. 116/2018 | 379/175/414 of the I.P.C. and 3/4/54 of the J.M.M. Rules, 2004 |
| 5 | Muffasil P.S. Case No. 141/18 | 379/411/304/34 of the I.P.C. and 54 of the J.M.M. Rules, 2004 |
| 6 | Taljhari P.S. Case No. 21/2019 | 386/387 of the I.P.C. |
| 7 | Muffasil P.S. Case No. 26/2019 | 280/282/379/427/34 of the I.P.C. and 20/54 of the J.M.M. Rules, 2004 |
| 8 | Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 261/2020 | 341/393/504/506/417/420/34 of the I.P.C. |
| 9 | Muffasail P.S. Case No. 18/2021 | 341/323/302/201/504/506/34 of the I.P.C. |
| 10 | Muffasil P.S. Case No. 62/2021 | 147/148/149/384/385/504/506 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act |
| 11 | Taljhari P.S. Case No. 76/2021 | 175/39/307 of the I.P.C. 4/54 of the J.M.M. Rules, 2004 and 21(A) 21(6)/22 of M.M.D.A. 1957 |
| 12 | Taljhari P.S. Case No. 77/2021 | MMDRA Act and 3/4/5 of the Explosive Act |
| 13 | Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 58 of 22 | 323/504/506/420/120(B) of the I.P.C. and section 3(1) SC/ST Act. |
| 14 | Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 67/2022 | 465/471 of the IRC. and 25(1-B) A/26/35 of the Arms Act |
| 15 | Muffasil P.S. Case No. 26/22 | 403/420 of the I.P.C. |
| 16 | Muffasil P.S. Case No. 27/2022 | 147/148/149/349/120(B) of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act |
| 17 | Taljhari P.S. Case No. 10/2008 | 287/304A/34 of the I.P.C. |
| 18 | SC/ST Case No. 18/14 | 341/323/504/379/34 of the I.P.C. and under section 3/4 SC and ST Act |
| 19 | Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 242/2014 | 448/353/379/506/504 I.P.C. |
| 20 | Taljhari P.S. Case No. 100/2020 | 427/504/506/34 of the I.P.C. and under section 3/4 SC & ST Act |
| 21 | Gumla P.S. Case No. 207/2021 | 418/420/34 of the I.P.C., 72/72a/74 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000, 21/24/26 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1933 and 5/6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 |
| 22 | Muffasil P.S. Case No. 30/22 | 147/148/149/341/427/307/504/506 I.P.C. and 27/35 of the Arms Act |
Preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act requires the detaining authority to provide grounds for detention and adhere to procedural safeguards, but the subjective satisfacti....
The detenue's right to make an effective representation against preventive detention is guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Failure to supply the material forming the basis o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review over administrative decisions in preventive detention cases, emphasizing the subjective satisfaction of the de....
The detention order must be based on compelling reasons, and the detaining authority must supply all material forming the basis of the detention to enable effective representation. Failure to do so r....
Preventive detention upheld for anti-social element habitually committing grave offences with pending serious cases establishing live proximate public order threat; unsubstantiated mala fides and pro....
Preventive detention orders must be based on specific, documented grounds that are communicated to the detainee, ensuring compliance with constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22.
Preventive detention under the National Security Act requires clear justification of public order disturbances, adherence to procedural safeguards, and can be validated by prior criminal history.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
