Jharkhand High Court: While adjudicating a writ petition challenging successive preventive detention orders passed under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (‘2002 Act’), the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad* and Arun Kumar Rai, JJ., held that once the Advisory Board had opined sufficient cause for detention and the State Government had passed a confirmatory order, no further approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending detention up to the maximum period of twelve months. The Court opined that in light of Pesala Nookaraju v. State of A.P., (2023) 14 SCC 641, no approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s contention regarding illegal extension on the same facts and absence of Advisory Board approval was unsustainable in law and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Background:
The petitioner was a permanent resident of Latehar against whom several FIRs and sanhas were registered. The Superintendent of Police, Latehar, sent a letter recommending initiation of proceedings under Section 12(2) of the 2002 Act. Pursuant thereto, the District Magistrate initiated proceedings and passed an order of detention. Subsequently, the detention was specified for three months starting from 18-11-2024 till 17-02-2025. Thereafter, the detention was extended thrice, each time for three months, without any new grounds.
The petitioner contended that detention was illegally extended on the same facts and cases, that the impugned orders gave no finding with respect to the petitioner being an “anti-social element,” and that the mandatory requirement of recording reasons in writing under Section 12(2) of the 2002 Act was not followed. It was further argued that the Advisory Board’s approval was never taken for the extensions, rendering the orders non est in law.
Consequently, the State argued that the detention order was issued under Section 12(2) of the 2002 Act, as the petitioner was involved in five criminal cases and several sanhas relating to extortion, robbery, kidnapping, snatching, assault, and creating obstruction in government work. It was contended that the petitioner had already been convicted in one case and continued to engage in illegal and unlawful activities, thereby necessitating preventive detention to maintain law and order. The State also submitted that reasonable opportunity had been given to the petitioner and that the orders were in accordance with law.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the definition of “anti-social element” under Section 2(d) of the 2002 Act requires habitual commission of offences under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Penal Code, 1860 or certain other specific crimes. The Court noted that the petitioner’s involvement in multiple FIRs and sanhas, including serious offences like attempt to murder and extortion, demonstrated habitual criminal activity. The Court observed that the detaining authority was satisfied that detention was necessary as continuous criminal activities of the petitioner were causing threat to maintenance of public order.
The Court highlighted that the word “habitually” connotes repeated and persistent acts, not isolated incidents, and referred to the precedent in Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 3 SCC 14 to reinforce this interpretation. The Court further noted that “law and order” problems typically affect individuals, whereas “public order” disruptions affect the community’s normal functioning, and the petitioner’s activities fell within the latter category.
On the issue of Advisory Board approval, the Court observed that once the Advisory Board had opined sufficient cause for detention and the State Government had passed a confirmatory order, no further review was required for subsequent extensions. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pesala Nookaraju (supra) to hold that detention could be continued up to the maximum period of twelve months without repeated Advisory Board approvals.
The Court thus concluded that the impugned orders of extension of detention need not require interference, and the petition was dismissed.
[Upendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3615, decided on 17-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
For the State: Sachin Kumar, AAG-II, Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG-II