Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Hari Tiwary @ Dhirendra Tiwary, Son of Vijay Tiwari @ Phut Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
“That by way of the instant writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the order as contained in CCA no 1/2025-2026 dated 01/09/2025 passed by the Learned deputy commissioner cum District Magistrate, Palamu by which the detention order passed under section 12(II) of Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002 has been extended till 4/12/2025 (Impugned order) and declare the detention of the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional.;
AND
The petitioner further prays for quashing the order as contained in CCA no 1/2025-2026 dated 18/07/2025 passed by the Learned under Secretary Home prison and disaster management department by order dated 18/7/25 no 05/CCA/01/38/2025-256-CCA since the advisory council has expressed the opining that there exits sufficient ground for detaining the petitioner under the Jharkhand crime control act 2002, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under section 21(1) and section 22 of the Jharkhand crime control act 2002, the state government confirmed detention order passed by district magistrate palamu da
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 requires strict compliance with statutory safeguards and justifications for delay, ensuring protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
The power to fix the period of preventive detention under the KAAPA is exclusively vested in the Government after receiving the Advisory Board's report, and any initial stipulation of a detention per....
The law of preventive detention should not be used arbitrarily to deprive a citizen of his right to life and liberty. The detaining authority must be satisfied that the person's case falls squarely w....
The court affirmed that previous crimes may be considered in detention orders under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act, with permissible delays explained adequately by authorities.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of habitual criminality and a threat to public order, not merely law and order issues.
Preventive detention orders can be validly issued against individuals in judicial custody if the authority demonstrates sufficient grounds to believe they pose a future threat of criminal activity.
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
