Can't Curtail Or Play With A Citizen's Liberty By Detaining Him On Pretext Of Holding Fair Polls: Jharkhand High Court

“If this becomes a ground, then the same will amount to giving unbridled, uncanalised sweeping power to the administration to detain any person under the Act during the time of election, it will be nothing, but playing with the liberty of citizens,” a bench of Justice Anand Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed.

The division bench also opined that merely entering the Station Diary Entry and alleging some acts cannot be grounds for detaining a person.

The court made these observations while allowing a criminal writ petition filed by one Ganesh Singh @ Nishant Singh challenging a September 2024 order passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, putting him under preventive detention in terms of Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.

The petitioner also challenged an order of the Additional Secretary, Govt of Jharkhand, confirming his preventive detention, as well as an order extending the preventive detention from December 4, 2024, to March 3, 2025.

It was the case of the petitioner before the HC that he was neither a habitual offender nor an anti-social element, which would warrant his detention, and there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner is a threat to society and is a threat to public order.

It was also argued that the officials of the District had tried to convert the “law and order” problem to that of “public order” to harass him.

On the other hand, in justifying the impugned order, the state government contended that criminal cases were pending against the petitioner, and it was necessary to detain him because of those criminal cases and Station Diary Entries (Sanha).

It was submitted that the Station Diary Entries would suggest that the petitioner is involved in several criminal cases and is a threat to the general public of the locality and society as a whole.

It was also contended that to conduct peaceful assembly elections of the State and also to control the crime rate in the area, it was necessary to keep the petitioner in custody.

Perusing the petitioner's criminal history, the Court noted that the pending cases against him include a 2016 case and a 2023 case. Additionally, a 2021 case involved the fraudulent sale of government land. The Court observed that these cases do not categorize him as an "anti-social" element or habitual offender under the Act.

Moreover, the Court noted that the petitioner is currently out on bail, and the State had not filed any application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

So far as the argument regarding Station Diary Entries was concerned, the Court observed that it was an admitted case that had not culminated in any criminal case.

“It is surprising that if the acts mentioned in the Station Diary Entries are criminal acts and are cognizable in nature, then why the State has not filed any First Information Report. Law provides that if cognizable offence is committed and is brought to the knowledge of any authority, First Information Report should be lodged. The Deputy Commissioner is the Head of the Prosecution of the District and he has passed the impugned order and has referred to Sanhas (Station Diary Entries). If at all those acts mentioned in Sanhas (Station Diary Entries) make out any criminal offence, what prevented the State to file a First Information Report is a mystery for us,” the Court remarked as it concluded that the entries in question were made only for the purpose of keeping the petitioner in detention without there being any basis.

Further, the Court also rejected the argument that the detention order was necessary for the proper conduction of elections, as it observed thus:

“Liberty of a citizen of our country must be kept at the highest pedestal. Same cannot be curtailed on the whims and wishes of any of the officials of the State. Not only there has to be a good reason to curtail the said liberty, but that reason has to be strong enough and the evidence should be impeccable. With the fall of a hat, a citizen cannot be deprived of his personal liberty. Further, the election process in the State is already over. Even on the pretext of holding fair and proper election, liberty of the citizen cannot be curtailed.”

With these observations, the writ plea was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.

Case title - Ganesh Singh @ Nishant Singh vs State of jharkhand and others

Case citation : 

Click Here To Read/Download Order