1 2026:CGHC:20369-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 246 of 2026 Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o- Munnalal Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o- Ward No. 04, Lawan Ps Lawan District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner And Detaining Authority, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, A.A.G Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01/05/2026 1. Heard Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General, SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.05.05 10:26:46 +0530 2 appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by Commissioner-Cum- Preventing Authority, Raipur, Division Raipur in Criminal Case No. 202501970100089/06B-121/2025. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an Istagasa was submitted against the petitioner before the competent authority under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, alleging that the petitioner is habitually involved in offences under the NDPS Act and there exists a likelihood of his continuing such activities. In the said Istagasa, reliance was placed upon two FIRs, i.e., FIR No. 95/2015 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, in which the petitioner has already been acquitted, and FIR No. 173/2022 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, which is presently pending trial and is stated to be false and fabricated. Based on the alleged criminal antecedents, a show cause notice dated 02.04.2025 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why an order of detention be not passed against him. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 09.04.2026 along with relevant documents and judgments, specifically contending that he has been falsely implicated and there is no likelihood of his indulging in any illegal activity. However, without properly appreciating the reply and material placed on record, the competent authority passed the impugned order directing detention of the petitioner for a period of six months, which is under challenge in 3 the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is having 2 criminal antecedents of the offence under the NDPS Act, which was of the year 2015 and 2022. He would further submits that out of 2 offences of NDPS Act, the one offence of the year 2015 has been decided but the offence of the year 2022 is under consideration before the learned trial Court and the case is pending. He would further submits that there is no other case after 2022 against the petitioner. The Commissioner, only on apprehension had passed the order that the petitioner is actively engaged in illegal trafficking of Ganja. There is no concrete material available with them to believe that he actually involved in illegal trafficking of Ganja. There is no sources of their satisfaction yet they have passed the order which adversely affects the rights of the petitioner, therefore, impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be released from jail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that the consideration of the Commissioner is based on substantive satisfaction that the petitioner is engaged in illegal trafficking of Ganja which affecting the public at large in the vicinity as well as in the city. As per their own submission, one case is still pending against the petitioner relating to the offence of the year 2022. Despite that there is allegation that he engaged in similar nature of offence. Though no offence has been registered against the petitioner but it is preventive measure under which the petitioner has been detained in jail 4 to prevent the petitioner from engaging in illicit trafficking in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances for which the impugned order has been passed which is strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations and the material placed on record, it is evident that though one of the cases registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act has resulted in acquittal, the other case pertaining to the year 2022 is still pending before the learned trial Court. The competent authority, taking into account the antecedents of the petitioner and with a view to prevent him from engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, has passed the impugned order of detention. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority while passing the said order. 8. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner has already undergone a substantial period of detention and one of the antecedents has ended in acquittal, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the period of detention from six months to three months. Accordingly, while upholding the impugned order on merits, the period of detention is reduced to three months. 5 9. The petitioner is reported to be in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 10. With the aforesaid modification, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika