Abdul Hai Ansari S/o Shri Abdul Hafeez Aged About 63 Years R/o Khutapara, Dongargarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Rajnandgaon
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.19 10:38:02 +0530 2025:CGHC:12815-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 152 of 2025 Abdul Hai Ansari S/o Shri Abdul Hafeez Aged About 63 Years R/o Khutapara, Dongargarh, Tahsil And Distt.- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner And Detaining Authority Durg Division, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent / State. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief(s):- 2 “A. Call for the entire records of the case pertaining to the Petitioner. B. Issue a writ/order/direction of appropriate nature for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2. C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner has several criminal antecedents and there is likelihood of him continue to commit crime, an application under Section 3(1) was preferred by the Respondent No.1 before the Respondent No.2 to take necessary action and to pass appropriate orders vide memo dated 10.09.2024 along with the report of the SHO Dongargarh. Pursuant to the memo dated 10.09.2024, a show cause notice dated 17.09.2024 was issued by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner and fixed the date for hearing on 07.10.2024. After receipt of the said show cause notice, the Petitioner filed his reply before the Authority clearly indicating that a false report has been made against him, he has been falsely implicated, so far as earlier
Decision
offences are concerned they have already been disposed off and recently he has not been involved in any dispute with anybody nor he is involved in any illegal business of narcotic substances and prayed for dropping the criminal proceedings against him and also submitted the copies of the orders to substantiate his claim. 3 Despite the aforesaid depiction/explanation of the Petitioner to assure the Respondent No.2 that there is no likelihood of him indulging in commission of any other crime, the Impugned Order was passed imposing detention of 6 (six) months against the Petitioner and the Petitioner, pursuant to the order passed has already surrendered before the Competent Authority and is in custody since then, Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that no criminal case has been registered against the Petitioner since the year 22 and therefore it was not expedient, in the interest of justice, to detain him for a period of 6 (six) months. Further, out of the total 4 cases registered under the provisions of NDPS Act in two of the cases of year 2004 & 2008 enlisted by the prosecution, the Petitioner has already been acquitted therefore the same would not constitute criminal antecedent. Moreover, it is submitted that the Petitioner is continuously being falsely implicated in the commission of offence by the Police. So far as other two cases of NDPS Act are concerned which are of the year 2014 and 2022 they have already been disposed off and after conviction the petitioner has served the sentence imposed by the learned courts therefore detaining the petitioner further for no offence or the earlier offence committed by him in which he has served the sentence amounts to violation of fundamental right of the 4 petitioner. The respondent no. 2 has failed to properly appreciate the explanation given by the petitioner and despite the proper explanation and the assurance to not commit any offence particularly when the other cases have been disposed off the respondent authority has passed the order impugned which amounts to arbitrary action against the petitioner and is violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner provided under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Section 3 sub-section (2) of the Act, 1988 provides that after passing of the order of detention the state government shall send a report to the Central Government informing about the passing of such order and the Central Government in turn under section 13 may pass an order for interim release of the person under detention, however, in the instant matter there is violation of section 3(2) as no such information/intimation has been sent to the Central. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, CRA 1708 of 2022, vide its order dated 30.09.2022, has quashed and set aside the order detaining the Petitioner therein on the ground that out of the cases listed by the prosecution, the Petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Special Court and the same was brought to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court. Further, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that preventive detention laws allow for curbing liberty, however, courts must ensure that such rights are not arbitrarily suspended. Moreover, the right to personal liberty and individual freedom is 5 paramount and cannot be taken away without following the procedure prescribed by law. In the present case, the Petitioner has not been involved in commission of offence of any kind since last 2 years and therefore there was no requirement to proceed against him under the preventive detention laws. In the present case the Petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal Courts on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that as per records, the petitioner has total 08 criminal antecedents, out of which, 04 are under the NDPS Act and though the petitioner has been acquitted in two of the cases and undergone jail sentence in rest of the two cases, but there is every likelihood of him to continue to commit crime as the records itself shows that petitioner herein is a habitual offender. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order, in which, no interference is sought for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that petitioner herein has a history of 8 criminal antecedents out of which, 04 are under the NDPS Act, though he has been acquitted and undergone his sentence his the said cases, it could not be disputed that the petitioner is a habitual 6 offender and there is every likelihood of him indulging in commission of any other crime, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity hence no case is made out for any interference by this Court for quashing the impugned order, as such, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet