1. Challenge to three successive extensions of preventive detention order under Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 3541
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
UPENDRA YADAV ALIAS BHUPENDRA YADAV ALIAS BHUPESH JI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS HOME JAIL AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT – Respondent
W.P.(Cr.) 255 / 2025
Important Points
Preventive detention under Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act requires habitual commission of offences; after Advisory Board confirmation, extensions do not need further Board approval, and detention can last up to twelve months.
Subject
Criminal Law - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.226
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002: S.2(d), S.12, S.17, S.18, S.19, S.20, S.21, S.22
Indian Penal Code, 1860: S.34, S.147, S.148, S.149, S.307, S.323, S.341, S.353, S.386, S.425
Arms Act, 1959: S.25(1-B)(A), S.26, S.27, S.35
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956
CLA Act: S.17
Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985: S.3(2)
Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986: S.3(2), S.12, S.13
Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002: S.2(d), S.12, S.17, S.18, S.19, S.20, S.21, S.22
Indian Penal Code, 1860: S.34, S.147, S.148, S.149, S.307, S.323, S.341, S.353, S.386, S.425
Arms Act, 1959: S.25(1-B)(A), S.26, S.27, S.35
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956
CLA Act: S.17
Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985: S.3(2)
Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986: S.3(2), S.12, S.13
Headnote
(A) Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 - Sections 2(d), 12(1), 12(2), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 - Indian Penal Code - Chapters XVI and XVII - Preventive detention - Definition of “anti-social element” - Requirement of habitual commission of offences - Extension of detention - Need for Advisory Board approval after confirmatory order - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction.
(B) The expression “habitually” means repeatedly or persistently, implying a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts; isolated or dissimilar acts are insufficient to justify inference of habit. (Para 15)
(C) Once the Advisory Board has opined that there is sufficient cause for detention and the State Government passes a confirmatory order, no further approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention; the State Government need not review the detention every three months. The maximum period of detention is twelve months from the date of detention. (Paras 45-47)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained under the Act based on five FIRs and six sanhas involving offences such as attempt to murder, extortion, and violations of the Arms Act. The initial detention order dated 18.11.2024 was for three months. After approval by the Advisory Board, the State Government passed a confirmatory order on 02.01.2025. Subsequently, the detention was extended three times, each for three months, up to 17.11.2025. The petitioner challenged these extensions on the ground that they were passed without fresh approval of the Advisory Board and that he was not an anti-social element.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner habitually committed offences under Chapters XVI and XVII of the IPC, bringing him within the definition of “anti-social element” under Section 2(d) of the Act. Regarding the extensions, the court held that once the Advisory Board had confirmed the detention and the State Government had passed a confirmatory order, no further reference to the Advisory Board was necessary for subsequent extensions. The extensions were validly made under Section 12(2) read with Section 21 of the Act.
Issues: The main issues were (i) whether the petitioner’s criminal activities fell within the definition of “anti-social element” under Section 2(d) of the Act, and (ii) whether the approval of the Advisory Board was required for extending the period of detention after the initial confirmatory order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the definition of “anti-social element” requires habitual conduct, which was established by the multiple FIRs and sanhas. On the procedural issue, the court followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Pesala Nookaraju, holding that after the Advisory Board’s positive opinion and the State Government’s confirmatory order, no further Advisory Board approval is needed for extensions; the State Government may extend detention from time to time up to a maximum of twelve months from the date of detention. Result : Writ petition dismissed.
(B) The expression “habitually” means repeatedly or persistently, implying a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts; isolated or dissimilar acts are insufficient to justify inference of habit. (Para 15)
(C) Once the Advisory Board has opined that there is sufficient cause for detention and the State Government passes a confirmatory order, no further approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention; the State Government need not review the detention every three months. The maximum period of detention is twelve months from the date of detention. (Paras 45-47)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained under the Act based on five FIRs and six sanhas involving offences such as attempt to murder, extortion, and violations of the Arms Act. The initial detention order dated 18.11.2024 was for three months. After approval by the Advisory Board, the State Government passed a confirmatory order on 02.01.2025. Subsequently, the detention was extended three times, each for three months, up to 17.11.2025. The petitioner challenged these extensions on the ground that they were passed without fresh approval of the Advisory Board and that he was not an anti-social element.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner habitually committed offences under Chapters XVI and XVII of the IPC, bringing him within the definition of “anti-social element” under Section 2(d) of the Act. Regarding the extensions, the court held that once the Advisory Board had confirmed the detention and the State Government had passed a confirmatory order, no further reference to the Advisory Board was necessary for subsequent extensions. The extensions were validly made under Section 12(2) read with Section 21 of the Act.
Issues: The main issues were (i) whether the petitioner’s criminal activities fell within the definition of “anti-social element” under Section 2(d) of the Act, and (ii) whether the approval of the Advisory Board was required for extending the period of detention after the initial confirmatory order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the definition of “anti-social element” requires habitual conduct, which was established by the multiple FIRs and sanhas. On the procedural issue, the court followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Pesala Nookaraju, holding that after the Advisory Board’s positive opinion and the State Government’s confirmatory order, no further Advisory Board approval is needed for extensions; the State Government may extend detention from time to time up to a maximum of twelve months from the date of detention. Result : Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sonal Sodhani
For the Respondents: Sachin Kumar, Srikant Swaroop
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sonal Sodhani
For the Respondents: Sachin Kumar, Srikant Swaroop
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argues no fresh grounds or Advisory Board approval; respondent asserts habitual criminality and public order necessity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Writ petition dismissed; impugned extension orders of preventive detention upheld as legally valid. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 )
4. What does 'habitually' mean in the definition of 'anti-social element' under Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002?
It means repeatedly or persistently committing similar acts; isolated or dissimilar acts are insufficient. Repeated, persistent, similar acts of the same kind are required. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 23 , 25 )
5. Is the approval of the Advisory Board required for extending the period of preventive detention after the initial confirmatory order?
No. Once the Advisory Board confirms sufficient cause and the State Government passes a confirmatory order, no further Advisory Board approval is needed for extensions; detention can continue up to twelve months. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 )
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
“(i). For quashing up of the order dated 18.02.2025 passed vide letter/order no. 05/CCA/01/57/2024-17/CCA (Annexure- 4) passed by Under Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand by which the order of detention has been further extended as against the present petitioner for next three months, from 18.02.2025 to 17.05.2025 without any sufficient cause;
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s) / direction(s) for stay of operation of order dated 18.02.2025 passed vide letter/order no. 05/CCA/01/57/2024-17/CCA (Annexure-4) during the pendency of this writ petition;
(iii) the petitioner further prays for quashing of order dated 16.05.25 (Annexure 5) passed vide Memo No.150/CCA by Under Secretary (Home) Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No.2) by which the 3rd extension for detention has been given i.e. from 18.05.2025 to 17.08.2025.
AND
(iv) Petitioner further prays issuance of the appropriate writ/writs, order or orders, direction or directions to quash the order dated 11.08.2025 issued by the Department of Home, Prison and disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand by which detention of Petitioner was further extended for the period of 3 months from 18.08.2025 to 17.11.2025.”
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:
i. The present Petitioner is a permanent resident of Latehar.
ii. It is stated that the Superintendent of Police, Latehar, sent a letter vide memo No.425/DCB, dated 04.11.2024 to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate,Latehar recommending initiation of proceeding under Section 12(2) of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, as against the petitioner.
iii. Pursuant to the said memo/letter from the Superintendent of Police, Latehar, the learned Court of Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar initiated a proceeding under Jharkhand Control of Crime Act, 2002 by registering a case as CCA Case No. 03 dated 18.11.2024 and passed an order of detention against the petitioner. However, the duration of detention was not specified.
iv.Thereafter, on 02.01.2025, an order was passed by the respondent no. 02 vide order/letter no. 05/CCA/01/57/2024-382/CCA specified that the petitioner has been detained for 03 months starting from 18.11.2024 till 17.02.2025.
v.The present petitioner was served with a show cause vide letter No.1499 dated 18.11.2024 by the learned Court of Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act Case No.03 dated 18.11.2024.
vi. The report made by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Latehar, specifically mentions that as against the petitioner, five FIRs and six sanhas were mentioned. The FIR’s registered against the portioner are-Manika PS Case No.15 of 2014 under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 425 IPC and section 17 CLA; Manika PS Case No.32 of 2016 under sections147, 148, 149, 307, 353 of the IPC and Section 25(1-B) (A)/27/35 of the Arms Act; Manika PS Case No.72 of 2016 under sections 386, 34 IPC, 25(1-B) (A)/26/35 of the Arms Act and section 17 CLA Act ; Manika PS Case No.127 of 2022 under section 386/34 of the IPC and section 25(1-B) (A)/26/35 of the Arms Act and section 17 CLA Act and Manika PS Case No.55 of 2024 under sections 25(1-B) (A)/26/35 of the Arms Act and section 17 CLA Act .
vii. It has been pleaded that out of that case only two cases are pending which are Manika PS Case No.32 of 2016 dated 08.05.2016 and Manika P.S Case No.55 of 2024 dated 31.08.2024 under sections 25(1B) (A)/26/35 Arms Act and under section 17 CLA Act .
viii. It is alleged that subsequently after completion of three months of detention, on the same facts with no new grounds and on the same list of
cases, the detention of the petitioner w
