1 2025:CGHC:48900-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 516 of 2025 Vinod Tiwari S/o Markande Tiwari aged about 36 years R/o Village / City Vrinda Nagar Camp - 1, Ward No. 29 Near Government School Police Station Vaishali Nagar Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Particular of the Petitioner not oroperly mentioned) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan New Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Cum Detaining Authority Under The Prevention Of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 Durg Division District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent of Police District Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Station House Officer Police Station Vaishali Nagar District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondents /State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside / quashed the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed in criminal case по. 35/2025 passed by the learned Commissioner cum detaining authority Durg District Durg (C.G.). 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by Commissioner-cum-Detaining Authority / respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been illegally detained for a period of three months, only on the ground and presumption that the petitioner is a habitual offence though he has been acquitted in both the cases which were pending against him, whereas in the another case, which has been registered against the co-accused person, petitioner has been falsely implicated on the basis of memorandum statement of co- accused and in the said case also, the petitioner has already been granted bail, which shows that he is not involve in any heinous offence attracting punishment of life imprisonment and the petitioner is now living a simple life and he is working at Mumbai with his father, who is a Government Civil Contractor. Therefore, 3 the order impugned be set aside and the petitioner be released. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in WPCR No. 380 of 2025 (Vishnu Kashyap Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) decided on 11.07.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submission and supporting the impugned order, submits that though the petitioner has been acquitted in two cases bearing Crime Nos. 309/2022 and 218/2023 of the NDPS Act, but still there is one case pending of same nature against him bearing Crime No. 62/2025 and allegation against the petitioner in the said case is that he is involved the selling to the contraband article, therefore, the Detaining Officer has rightly passed the impugned order detaining the petitioner for a period of 3 months, in which no interference is called for. 5. Form perusal of the impugned order and the materials brought on record, it transpires that against the petitioner two cases bearing Crime Nos. 309/2022 and 218/2023 of the NDPS Act have been registered, though he has been acquitted in the said two case, but recently, another case bearing Crime No. 62/2025 has been registered against the petitioner, though he has obtained regular bail in the said case, but the same is still pending for trial. It further transpires that after releasing on bail, the petitioner has been continuously involved in criminal activities and there appears to be no improvement in his behavior. Even, complaints of 4 marijuana and other narcotic substances being sold by the petitioner have been continuously received, as such, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter. 6. According, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra