Back
ANANDA SEN, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Abhimanyu Singh @ Sintu Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Both the parties agrees for disposal of this case at the stage of Admission. Considering the fact that this case involves personal liberty, we are disposing of this case at the Admission stage itself.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State at length.
3. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 04.09.2024 contained in Memo No. 322(A)/Law passed by the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur by which he has been detained in terms of Section 12 of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. Further for quashing the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by Under Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand by which the prevention order was confirmed. Further the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by District Magistrate, East Singhbhum by which his detention has been extended, has also been challenged in this case by way of amendment.
4. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither a habitual offender or anti-social, nor it can be said that he is a threat to the public order. The r
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of habitual offending behavior; mere allegations are insufficient to justify detention under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of habitual criminality and a threat to public order, not merely law and order issues.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of material connecting the alleged anti-social activity to the breach of public order in order to justify preventive detention unde....
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus to public order disruption, which was not met in this case, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
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
