SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1722

2025:JHHC:22674
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Rampravesh Gupta @ Ramu Saw @ Ram Pravesh Sao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand  - Respondent
W.P.(Cr.) (DB) No.133 of 2025
Decided on : 08-08-2025
Advocate Appeared : 
For the Appellant : Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Deepankar, A.C. to G.P.-III

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepankar

Preventive detention requires the detaining authority to consider all relevant facts to ensure subjective satisfaction; failure to do so results in detention being quashed.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Sections 3, 8, 9, 11 - Writ petition for quashing of detention order under the Act, which was issued due to repeated illicit trafficking - The court found the authority's failure to consider vital facts such as bail orders and discharge from charges invalidated subjective satisfaction for detention; hence, the detention was quashed. (Paras 14, 24, 32, 36, 40, 47)

(B) Subjective Satisfaction - Detention authority must consider all relevant documents, including discharge orders and bail, prior to detaining a person under preventive detention laws, ensuring no arbitrary deprivation of liberty. (Paras 41, 42, 46)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained under authority citing repeated involvement in narcotic offenses, with several FIRs against him. He was released on bail and discharged from some charges before the detention order. (Paras 2, 10, 34)

Findings of Court:
Detention order was quashed due to lack of subjective satisfaction as vital facts were not considered; casual approach in enforcing detention was noted. (Paras 46, 47)

Issues: The court addressed whether the authorities had subjective satisfaction when detaining the petitioner, and if necessary documentation was reviewed. (Paras 20, 32)

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to consider critical information inhibits the necessary subjective satisfaction required for detention under the Act, rendering the order illegal. (Paras 33, 41)

Result: Writ petition allowed; detention order quashed and the petitioner released. (Paras 48, 49)

Table of Content
1. detention order issuance context (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments against detention order validity (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. legal principles and statutory provisions (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. subjective satisfaction requirement (Para 31 , 32 , 34 , 39)
5. court's ruling on detention order quash (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 14.05.2024 passed in Memo No.18/PIT NDPS-23/2024- 3039 and order dated 14.05.2024 passed in 18/PIT NDPS- 23/2024-3041 issued by the Principal Secretary, Home, Prison & Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act,1988) by which the petitioner has been directed to be detained in confinement.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as under: -

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of detention dated 14.05.2024 passed in 18/PIT NDPS- 23/2024-3041, by respondent no.2, shows that the detaining authority has observed that the petitioner is engaged in repeated cases of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people and harmful to the society and further that with a view to prevent the petitioner from committing any of the acts within the meaning of illicit traffic and also against the general public especially the younger generation from the use and occupation of the drugs, it is necessary to detain him.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about his detention, after receiving the letters vide letter no. 239 and 240 both dated 27.06.2024 issued by the Deputy Collector, District General Branch,Chatra (respondent no.5) to the Circle Officer,Chatra(respondent no.7).

5. The petitioner had been implicated in connection with- Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.123 of 2020 dated 13.05.2020 for offence u/s 17(C), 18(C), 22(C) and 29 of NDPS Act; Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.01 of 2021 dated 01.01.2021 under Section 18 of NDPS Act; Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.06 of 2021 dated 13.01.2021 under section 18 of NDPS Act; Itkhori P.S. case No. 210 of 2020 dated 30.12.2020 under section 18 of NDPS Act and Barhi (Hazaribagh) P.S. Case No. 175 of 2007 dated 22.08.2007 under section 15/8 of NDPS Act.

6. Apart from the aforesaid F.I.R., the Respondents lodged some Sanhas against the petitioner, which are as follows:-

(i) Station diary entry bearing Chatra Sadar P.S.. Sanha No-23/2024 dated 17.03.2024 has been lodged by A.S.I. Praveen Kumar, Chatra Sadar Police Station, against the petitioner for opium smuggling activities.

(ii) Station diary entry bearing Chatra Sadar P.S.. Sanha No-24/2024 dated 22.03.2024 has been lodged by A.S.I. Anand Kishore Osga, Chatra Sadar Police Station, against the petitioner and others for opium smuggling activities.

(iii) Station diary entry bearing Chatra Sadar P.S.. Sanha No-21/2024 dated 23.03.2024 has been lodged by A.S.I. Pravesh Kumar Ram, Chatra Sadar Police Station, against the petitioner and others for opium and Brown Sugar smuggling activities.

7. It has been stated that the accused arrested under the NDPS Act, 1985 can be ordered to be released on bail only if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

8. Petitioner has already been enlarged on regular bail by the Hon’ble High Court in Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.123 of 2020; Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.01 of 2021 and Itkhori P.S. case No. 210 of 2020.

9. In Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.06 of 2021, the petitioner has already been discharged from all the charges by the learned trial court in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top