Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 426
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
GOMTI BARETH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPCR/175/2025
Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate; Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate
Detention orders must be supported by credible evidence; prior acquittal under the same charges invalidates subsequent detention.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1981 - Section 10 - Petition for quashing of impugned order and istagasa - Petitioner acquitted of charges under NDPS Act; subsequent detention order based on vague allegations and lack of evidence - Court emphasized the need for credible evidence before detention. (Paras 3, 5, 12)
(B) Human Rights - Violation of rights during arrest - Court reiterated the principles laid down in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal regarding the rights of arrested individuals and the necessity of proper procedures. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a housewife, was acquitted of charges under the NDPS Act in April 2024. Subsequently, she received a notice alleging habitual criminal behavior without any supporting evidence. The impugned order directed her detention for three months based on these allegations. (Paras 3, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner cannot be detained based on vague allegations, especially after being acquitted of the same charges. The impugned order was set aside. (Paras 12, 13)
Issues: The main issues included whether the detention order was justified given the lack of evidence and the prior acquittal of the petitioner. (Paras 5, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s prior acquittal and the absence of credible evidence against her necessitated the quashing of the detention order, emphasizing the importance of due process and the protection of individual rights. (Paras 12, 13)
Result: The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside, and the petitioner is to be released forthwith.
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
27.03 .2025
1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following relief(s):-
“1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition and kindly quash the impugned order dated 20/03/2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the respondent no. 2 and may kidly quash the impugned Istagasa dated 11/09/2024 (ANNEXURE P/2) passed by the respondent no. 4, in the ends of Justice.
2) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favor of the petitioner.”
3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is house wife and in the year 2024, she has been prosecuted for an offence under the provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1881 (for short, “NDPS Act”) and after the trial, vide order dated 15.04.2024, she has been acquitted from the charges levelled against her under the NDPS Act by the learned Special Court (NDPS) Janjgir-Champa in Special Case (NDPS) No.21/2023 and till date, no any criminal records have been registered against the petitioner in any Police Station.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner has received a notice on 20.09.2024 under the provision of Section 10 of prevention of Illicit Trafficking Narcotics, Drugs, and Psychotropic Substances Act along with the letter of Station House Officer, Police Station Nagarda and from the perusal of the notice along with the document, it is clear that in the aforesaid notice, the respondents have given the reference of earlier case, in which the petitioner has already been acquitted by the learned Special Court and insofar as the Istagasa is concerned, the said istagasa is vague and not contains any kind of the complaint and simply mentions that the peittioner is indulged in the offence and she is a habitual criminal. Though, for the aforesaid istagasa, the respondent has not submitted any written complaint about the indulgence of the petitioner in any kind of crime. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. A copy of the reply of the aforesaid show cause notice, but the prosecution agency never recorded any kind of the statement of the SHO Nagarda in presence of the petitioner, even did not seek any kind of the written complaint, if any, from the respondent SHO as also did not give any opportunity of hearing for cross examination the said SHO and took the written argument of the petitioner, in which the petitioner has categorically stated that the aforesaid istagasa is vague and with the malafide intention to implicate the petitioner in this case the said istagasa has been prepared, as such, she made a prayer to quash the istagasa as well as the present case, which has been initiated against the petitioner under the illicit trafficking of Narcotics, Drugs, and Psychotropic Substances Act.
5. Thereafter, the respondent authority, i.e. respondent No.4 vide impugned order dated 20.03.2025 without looking into the relevant provisions of law, held that the petitioner after the legal proceeding did not correct his behaviour and the police has received many the complaints about her indulgence in the same type of crime. Though, the said finding is not supported by any material and further held that due to the act of the respondent, public at large have some public outrage and in view of the aforesaid finding held that the petitioner is a habitual offender and legal proceeding under the provision of Section 10 of the prevention of Illicit Trafficking Narcotics, Drugs, and Psychotropic Substances Act is just and proper and accordingly, directed the respondents to detain the petitioner for a period of 3 months in Disrict Jail Sakti.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities without finding an
