1 2025:CGHC:1644-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 10 of 2025 1 - Rohit Kannojiya S/o Nandu Kannojiya Aged About 27 Years R/o Yadav Chowk Ruwabandha Basti Police Station Bhilai Nagar Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police Durg (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner And Detaining Authority Durg Division Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. S. S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10 .01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Padney, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent/ State. 2. The present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 06/12/2024 passed by the Commissioner, 2 Durg Division, Durg in Criminal Case No. 01/2024 whereby the Commissioner, Durg while exercising the powers under Section 3 read with Section 11 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (in short “Act of 1988”) passed the order for detaining the petitioner in jail for six months. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the resident of Ruabandha Basti, Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, Dist- Durg, certain offences has been registered against him since 2015 to 2023 including the offences of Section 20(b), 27(A) of NDPS Act. The last offence under the NDPS Act against the petitioner was registered as Crime No. 196/2023 at Police Station, Bhilai Nagar, Dist- Durg. Since, the petitioner has involved in several offences and actively engaged in illegal activities including the trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance, the Commissioner, Durg had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 17/09/2024 and called his explanation as to why he should not be detained in jail for one year as provided under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1988. 4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and explained that in most of the cases, the petitioner has been acquitted and after releasing him on bail on 22/06/2023 in the offence of Crime No. 196/2023, there is no offence registered against him and therefore, he neither engaged himself in any illegal activities nor in trafficking of any narcotic drugs. 3 5. After considering the reply as well as the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Durg, the Commissioner, Durg has passed its order on 06/12/2024 and directed the petitioner be detained in Central Jail, Durg for six months while exercising its power under Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Act of 1988 which is under challenged in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before passing the order of detention, the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered properly and before passing the order, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided. Merely on the basis of police report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Durg, the Commissioner, Durg has passed the impugned order. Since, 2023 no other offence have been registered against the petitioner and there is no sufficient material against the petitioner to conclude that he actively engaged in the illegal activities or trafficking the narcotic drugs, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that from the impugned order itself, as well as the document annexed with the petition, it is quite vivid that total 16 offences have been registered against the petitioner in between the period of 2015 to 2023 including the offence of NDPS act which is sufficient to draw a conclusion that he actively engaged in illegal activities and to prevent such illegal activities of narcotic drugs or any other type of offence, he is directed to be detained in 4 Central Jail, Durg for six months, which is passed strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material produced with the petition. 9. From perusal of the material annexed with the petition, it appears that the offence under the NDPS Act has been registered against the petitioner as Crime No. 196/2023 and thereafter, no other offence has been registered against him. The Commissioner, Durg has passed its order on the basis of document produced before him and considered that there are offences registered against the petitioner in the regular interval and ever after releasing from jail, he indulge in illegal activities, there is no progress on his conduct. There is regular complaint received by the Police that he indulge in illegal activities of selling liquor and ganja and having gang of persons in each mohalla and to prevent the illegal activities of the petitioner, he is liable to be detained in jail. The consideration of the Commissioner, Durg is based on only apprehension that the petitioner is indulge in illegal activities for which they received inputs but there is no concrete material to draw the conclusion that the petitioner indulge in illegal activities of selling liquor or ganja. 10. We, therefore, do not found any sufficient ground to upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, Durg, dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure-P/1). 5 11. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 06/12/2024 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Durg to pass the appropriate order afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner is reported to be in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 12. In the result, the present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika