1 2025:CGHC:29302-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 356 of 2025 Shibu Chakravarti S/o Late Minal Chakravarti Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Jamkot Para, Kondagaon, Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner-Cum-Detaining Authority Bastar Division, Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. Tapan Chandra, Advocates For Respondents /State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01 . 07 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Deblina Maity, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 18-06-2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the respondent No.2 exercising to power under ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has passed an order of detention, whereby the petitioner has been detained for the period of 03 months in jail. 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that a Istagasa was produced in respect of petitioner by the respondent No.1 under Section 03 of the Act of 1988 before the respondent No.2, subsequently on the basis of which the proceedings under the Act of 1988 was initiated before the respondent No.2, where the case was registered as Case No.202505950100008/B-121/2024-25. In the proceedings, the statement of Station House Officer Kondagaon, was recorded wherein it was submitted that there was frequent information against the petitioner for illicit sale of contraband and also complaints were received and during the record inspection two criminal record relating to the NDPS has been filed, but one of it, the petitioner has been acquitted and in one case, the same is pending for its trial. It was also reported that even after above proceedings there was no correction in the status of the petitioner and there is complaint against the petitioner to be involved in the illicit Trafficking of Contraband and he is a habitual offender, thus recommendation was made for detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1988. The petitioner was provided with the Istagasa and other documents and the reply was sought and the statement was also recorded, wherein the petitioner denied the allegations and it was submitted that he 3 has been acquitted in the both the charges stated above and he prayed for rejection of the proceeding initiated under the Act of 1988. Subsequently after considering the documents and the material on record, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby in light of Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Act of 1988, the respondent No.2 came to the finding that the petitioner was involved in two crimes for trafficking of Ganja and there is apprehension that he would continued the same and thus in the light of Section 10 of the Act of 1988, the petitioner has been directed to be detained for the period of 03 months. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned dated 18.06.2025 is illegal, as the same has been passed relying upon the Istagasa as per which, the petitioner was involved in the two crime numbers registered against him in the year 2021 and 2025 for offence punishable under the NDPS Act and he is a habitual offender, whereas there is no material on record to show that at present the petitioner is involved in the illicit Trafficking of Contraband and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there are two criminal cases pending against the petitioner under the NDPS Act registered against him in the year 2021 and 2025 and in both the cases, the trial is still pending 4 and it was also reported that even after above proceedings there was no correction in the status of the petitioner and there is complaint against the petitioner to be involved in the illicit Trafficking of Contraband and he is a habitual offender, thus recommendation was made for detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1988. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that there are two criminal cases pending against the petitioner under the NDPS Act registered against him in the year 2021 and 2025 and in both the cases, the trial is still pending and it was also reported that even after above proceedings there was no correction in the status of the petitioner and there is complaint against the petitioner to be involved in the illicit Trafficking of Contraband and he is a habitual offender, thus recommendation was made for detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1988. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra