2026:JHHC:21721-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) (DB) No.121 of 2026 ----- Kuleshwar Yadav @ Kaleshwar Yadav @ Koleshwar Yadav, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Moti Yadav, Resident of Village-Kolhuwa, PO- Jamtar, P.S-Bashishthnagar, District-Chatra, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India. 2. The Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having its office at Police Head Quarter, Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, having its office at Police Head Quarter, Dhurwa, P.O & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Chatra, at Chatra, PO& PS Chatra, District- Chatra. 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Bashishthnagar Police Station, at PO & PS- Bashishthnagar, District-Chatra. … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Pallav, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Achyut Keshav, Sr. AAG Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to Sr. AAG ------- C.A.V. on 10.07.2026 Pronounced on 21/07/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent no.2, the Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, whereby direction was passed for detention of the petitioner under Section 3(i) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 2 Act,1988) in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi and further prayer has also been made to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 15.01.2026. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as under: - i. The respondent No. 2 has issued the order dated 15.01.2026 in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act, 1988 with a view to prevent the petitioner from engaging in Illicit Trafficking of NDPS in future and accordingly directed the petitioner to be detained and kept in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi. The grounds of detention have separately been issued on 15.01.2026 itself on the basis of the facts brought by the District Administration, Chatra, wherein, reference of ten criminal cases have been made which are as under: - (i) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.10/14 dated 03.02.2014, (ii) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.79/18 dated 21.11.2018, (iii) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.51/2021 dated 24.05.2021, (iv) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.05/2025 dated 19.01.2025, (v) Simaria P.S Case No.05/2008 dated 04.01.2008, (vi) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.45/2007 dated 26.08.2007, (vii) Bashisthnagar P.S Case No.24/25 dated 21.07.2025, (viii) Bashisthnagar P.S Diary Entry No.17/25 dated 23.07.2025, (ix) Bashisthnagar P.S Diary Entry No.20/25 dated 26.07.2025, and (x) Bashisthnagar P.S Diary Entry No.18/25 dated 31.07.2025. 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 3 ii. The order of detention was passed on 15.01.2026 against the petitioner, however, the same was served to him after 30.01.2026 while he was languishing in judicial custody in Chatra Jail, Chatra in connection with Kunda P.S. Case No. 01/2001, Corresponding to S.T No.380/2018. iii. The petitioner has faced trial in Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.10/2014 and has been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 17.01.2026. It has further been stated that the petitioner has also been acquitted in Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.79/2018 vide judgment dated 03.02.2026. iv. The petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.5/2025 by order dated 11.06.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.1001/2025 by the learned trial Court whereas in Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.51/2021, he has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 10.09.2025 in B.A No.7717/2025 by the Hon’ble High Court. v. Simariya P.S. Case No. 05/2008 and Bashisthnagar P.S. Case No. 45/2007 are admittedly not cases under the NDPS Act. In Simariya P.S. Case No. 05/2008, the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble High Court in B.A No. 4830/2025, whereas in Bashisthnagar P.S. Case No. 45/2007, the petitioner has never been remanded to custody till date. The said cases, therefore, neither disclose any involvement of the petitioner in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs nor establish any live or proximate link warranting preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act. Consequently, reliance upon such unrelated 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 4 and irrelevant cases for passing the detention order dated 15.01.2026 is impermissible in law, rendering the impugned detention order arbitrary, void and sustainable. 3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of detention and orders of extension of detention, the present writ petition has been preferred. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner: 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned decision: - (i) The writ petitioner has illegally been confined without any subjective satisfaction of the competent authority as also the Advisory Board has confirmed the decision of confinement without taking into consideration the issue of subjective satisfaction of the competent authority. (ii) The issue of subjective satisfaction, in the facts of the present case, is relevant since the writ petitioner was made accused in connection with the cases of illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. In the detention order dated 15.01.2026, there is reference of ten criminal cases referred hereinabove, but in Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.10/2014 vide judgment dated 17.01.2026 and Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.79/2018 vide judgment dated 03.02.2026, petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. In addition to that, the petitioner had been enlarged on bail in Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.51/2021 and Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.5/2025, by Court of Law. Therefore, 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 5 it is a case where the sanctioning authority cannot be said to have the subjective satisfaction. (iii) It has also contended that the Station Diary entries relied upon in the grounds of detention, namely Bashisthnagar P.S. Station Diary No. 24/2005 dated 21.07.2025, Station Diary No. 17/2005 dated 23.07.2025, Station Diary No. 20/2005 dated 26.07.2025 and Station Diary No. 18/2005 dated 31.07.2025, are merely internal police diary entries. It is well settled that such Station Diary entries, having no evidentiary value in the eye of law, cannot form the basis of subjective satisfaction for invoking preventive detention. (iv) It is a case where the petitioner although has been ordered to be detained vide order dated 15.01.2026 but the said impugned order was served to the petitioner on 30.01.2026, i.e., after lapse of about more than fifteen days which raises considerable doubt in the case of detaining authorities. (v) It has been contended that there are no direct or specific allegations against the petitioner, rather his implication has arisen merely on the basis of secret information or alleged confessional statements of co-accused, which, in absence of corroboration, has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. (vi) It has been contended that the cases lodged against the petitioner do not establish any direct, proximate or live link between the alleged past activities of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned detention order suffers from non-application of mind and without substantive satisfaction as required under law. 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 6 (vii) It has also been contended that Simariya P.S Case No.05/2008 and Bashisthnagar PS case No.45/2007 are admittedly not cases under the NDPS Act and, as such, the aforesaid cases neither disclose any involvement of the petitioner in illicit traffic or narcotic drugs nor establish any live or proximate link warranting preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act. Therefore, reliance upon such unrelated and irrelevant cases for passing the detention order dated 15.01.2026 is impermissible in law. (viii) In order to buttress the aforesaid arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011)5 SCC 244; Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur, (2012) 2 SCC 176; Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 2 SCC 81; Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and others, (2023)9 SCC 587 and Charitra Kumar Dangi @ Chalitar Dangi V. State of Jharkhand [ W.P(Cr.) No.557 of 2024]. 5. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the order of detention, therefore, suffers from an error and, hence, not sustainable in the eye of law. Submission of the learned counsel for the State: 6. Per contra, Mr. Achyut Keshav, learned AAG appearing for the respondents, on the basis of the counter affidavit has taken the following grounds in support of his pleadings: (i) There is no error in the impugned order, since, the petitioner was found to be habitual in trafficking of the narcotics which would be 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 7 evident from the impugned order wherein ten cases registered under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. (ii) It has been contended that on the proposal sent by the S.P, Chatra vide Memo No.847/DCB, dated 04.12.2025, the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra vide its letter no.1517 dated 22.12.2025 submitted the proposal to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Jharkhand for detention of the petitioner invoking the provision of section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act, 1988). (iii) It has been contended that at the time of passing detention order, the petitioner was not acquitted from charge in any of the four cases registered against him under NDPS Act as in Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.10/2014, he was acquitted on 17.01.2026 and in Bashishthnagar P.S Case No.79/2018, the petitioner was acquitted on 03.02.2026, whereas the detention order has been passed prior to that, i.e., on 15.01.2026. (iv) It has also been contended that still two cases, i.e., Bashisth Nagar P.S Case No.51/21 and Bashisth Nagar P.S Case No.05/25, which pertains to the NDPS Act, are pending against the petitioner. (v) It has been submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he deals in illegal trafficking of narcotic drugs and, as such, various cases have been registered against the petitioner at different time, under the PITNDPS Act, 1988. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner has been charge sheeted in all these cases with ulterior motive and he has been implicated on the basis of confession of any 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 8 particular co-accused which indicate the involvement of the petitioner in illicit drug trade. (vi) It has been contended that after receipt of proposal of the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, the respondent no.2 after examining and being satisfied with the materials contained in the said proposal has passed the impugned order of detention against the petitioner under section 3(i) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 which needs no interference. (vii) It has been canvassed that since the petitioner was already in jail custody in Chatra Jail and, as such, the ground of detention has been served to him on 30.01.2026 within the stipulated period. (viii) It has been contended that the said detention order was considered by the learned Advisory Board and on 17.03.2026 in which the petitioner was heard by the learned Advisory Board and it was opined by the learned Advisory Board that “the Detenu has stated that he has been served with a copy of the detention order” and the learned Advisory Board further opined that “after considering the entire matter, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for the detention of the detenue.” (ix) Referring the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the state has submitted that the detention order is in accordance with law and, as such, it needs no interference. (x) It has been contended that after aforesaid opinion of the learned Advisory Board, the detention order dated 15.01.2026 has been confirmed under section 9(f) of the Act,1988 and the period of detention has been fixed as one year from the date of detention 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 9 under section 11 of the Act,1988 vide Departmental Order No. 1300, dated 30.03.2026 which is sustainable in the eyes of law. (xi) It has been contended that the fact of the case of Charitra Kumar Dangi @ Chalitar Dangi V. State of Jharkhand (supra) is different from the case of this petitioner. In the case of Charitra Kumar Dangi, detenue was acquitted from the charges framed against him in all the cases registered against him including the cases under NDPS Act whereas in the present case, the petitioner has been acquitted in two cases only out of four cases lodged against him under the NDPS Act and further the said acquittal orders were passed after the passing of the impugned order of detention, therefore the ratio of the said case will not be applicable in the fact and circumstances of the instant case. (xii) It has been contended that there is no inordinate delay between proposal of detention, issuance of order of detention and complying the order of detention and, as such, it cannot be said that live and proximate link between past activities and detention order do not establish. (xiii) Learned counsel has further submitted that it is also incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that there is no subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority rather, each and every aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the competent sanctioning authority which on being deliberated by the Advisory Board has upheld the decision. When two authorities have upheld the issue of confining the petitioner in detention, it cannot be said that there is no subjective satisfaction. 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 10 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, based upon the aforesaid grounds, have submitted that it is, therefore, not a case where the order of detention is said to suffer from an error. Analysis 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order of detention as also the pleadings made on behalf of the petitioner and the State as available in the writ petition and the counter affidavits. 9. The issues which require consideration herein are – (i) Whether the grant of bail to the petitioner in pending cases and acquittal in some cases, registered under the NDPS Act, is ground for his release from the preventive detention passed under section3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988? (ii) Whether there is violation of section 3(3) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 in communicating ground of detention to the petitioner? 10. But, before considering the said issues, the statutory provision as contained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 with its object and intent needs to be referred herein. 11. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 has been enacted keeping in view that in recent years, India has been facing a problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. The spillover from such traffic has caused problems of abuse and addiction. This trend has created an illicit demand for drugs within the country which may result in the increase of illicit cultivation and manufacture of drugs. Although a number of legislative, administrative 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 11 and other preventive measures, including the deterrent penal provisions in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985, have been taken by the Government, the transit traffic in illicit drugs had not been completely eliminated. It was, therefore, felt that a preventive detention law should be enacted with a view to effectively immobilising the traffickers. The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 provides for preventive detention in relation to smuggling of drugs and psychotropic substances, but it cannot be invoked to deal with persons engaged in illicit traffic of drugs and psychotropic substances within the country. It was, therefore, felt that a separate legislation should be enacted for preventive detention of persons engaged in any kind of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 12. The relevant provisions which require consideration are Sections 3, 6, 9 and 11 of the Act,1988, which are necessary to be referred herein which read hereunder as :- “3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.-(I) The Central Government or a State Government, or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) When any order of detention is made by a State Government or by an officer empowered by a State Government, the State Government shall, within ten days, forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the order. (3) For the purposes of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 12 shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. 6. Grounds of detention severable.-Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under sub-section (1) of section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly- (a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are- (i) vague, (ii) non-existent, (iii) not relevant, (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, and it is not therefore possible to hold that the Government or officer making such order would have been satisfied as provided in sub-section (I) of section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention; (b) the Government or officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said sub- section (I) after being satisfied as provided in that sub-section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds. 9. 9. Advisory Boards.-For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) and subclause (c) of clause (7) of article 22 of the Constitution,- (a) the Central Government' and each State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more Advisory Boards each of which shall consist of a Chairman and two other persons possessing the qualifications specified in sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of article 22 of the Constitution; (b) save as otherwise provided in section 10, the appropriate Government shall, within five weeks from the date of detention of a person under a detention order, make a reference in respect thereof to the Advisory Board constituted under clause (a) to enable the Advisory Board to make the report under sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of article 22 of the Constitution; (c) the Advisory Board to which a reference is made under clause (b) shall after considering the reference and the materials placed before it and after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from any person, called for the purpose through the appropriate Government or from the person concerned, and if, in any particular case, it considers it essential so to 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 13 do or if the person concerned desires to be heard in person, after hearing him in person, prepare its report specifying in a separate paragraph thereof its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned and submit the same within eleven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned; (d) when there is a difference of opinion among the members forming the Advisory Board, the opinion of the majority of such members shall be deemed to be the opinion of the Board; (e) a person against whom an order of detention has been made under this Act shall not be entitled to appear by any legal practitioner in any matter connected with the reference to the Advisory Board and the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report, excepting that part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential; (f) in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith. 11. Maximum period of detention.-The maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 10 do not apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9 shall be one year from the date of detention, and the maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 10 apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9, read with sub-section (2) of section 10, shall be two years from the date of detention: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the power of appropriate Government in either case to revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time.” 13. It is evident that the Act, 1988 has been enacted since India has been facing a problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. It was, therefore, felt that a preventive detention law should be enacted with a view to effectively immobilising the traffickers. The Central Government and the State Governments have been empowered to make orders of detention with respect 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 14 to any person in respect of whom an order of detention is made under the Ordinance at any time before the 31st July, 1990 may be detained without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board for a period not exceeding one year from the date of his detention if the detaining authority is satisfied that such person is engaged, or is likely to engage, in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in any area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic. 14. Further, the “illicit traffic” has been defined as under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1988 which reads hereunder as: - “2. (e) "illicit traffic", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means- (i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant; (ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; (iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; (iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances other than those provided in sub-clauses (i) to (iii); or (v) handling or letting any premises for the carrying on of any of the activities referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv), other than those permitted under the Naroctic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) or any rule or order made, or any condition of any licence, term or authorisation issued, thereunder and includes- (1) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the aforementioned activities: (2) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance of or in support of doing any of the aforementioned activities; and (3) harbouring persons engaged in any of the aforementioned activities:” 15. Hence, Section 3 of the Act, 1988 provides power to make order detaining certain persons wherefrom it is evident that the competent authority if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 15 such person be detained. But, for the purpose of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. 16. Further, Section 9 of the Act, 1988 provides constitution of an Advisory Board with an intent to achieve the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) and subclause (c) of clause (7) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India with the conferment of power upon the Advisory Board that if any reference has been made and the materials placed before it and after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from any person, called for the purpose through the appropriate Government or from the person concerned, and if, in any particular case, it considers it essential so to do or if the person concerned desires to be heard in person, after hearing him in person, prepare its report specifying in a separate paragraph thereof its opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned and submit the same within eleven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. 17. 17. The maximum period of detention has been provided under Section 11 of the Act, 1988 and as provided therein any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 10 do not apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9 shall be one year from the date of detention, and the maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 10 apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 16 9, read with sub-section (2) of section 10, shall be two years from the date of detention. 18. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions, the factual aspect of the present case is to be considered in order to consider the issue as formulated hereinabove. Re: Issue No.(I) 19. Regarding issue no. (I), i.e. whether the grant of bail to the petitioner in pending cases and acquittal in some cases, registered under the NDPS Act, is ground for his release from the preventive detention passed under section3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988? the petitioner has raised ground that petitioner is already on bail or has been acquitted by the Court of law, in the NDPS cases registered against him and the said cases were relied by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention dated 15.01.2026 and, hence, detention order cannot be sustained. 20. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, it is admitted case that the order of detention was passed on 15.01.2026 and petitioner was detained on 30.01.2026 and after confirmation by the Advisory Board, the detention order dated 15.01.2026 was confirmed and under section 11 of the Act, petitioner was ordered to be detained for a period of one year from his date of detention, i.e., 30.01.2026. 21. This court, from perusal of record, finds that in the proposal submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, vide letter No. 1517 dated 22.12.2025, to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Jharkhand, for detention of the petitioner, there is inter alia reference of four NDPS cases registered against the petitioner, i.e, 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 17 Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 10/2014 dated 03.02.2014; Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 79/2018 dated 21.11.2018; Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021 dated 24.05.2021 and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025 dated 19.01.2025. 22. In Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 10/2014 and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 79/2018, petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court by order dated 17.01.2026 and 03.02.2026 respectively. Further, in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021 and in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025, petitioner has been enlarged on bail by order dated 10.09.2025 and 11.06.2025 respectively. 23. Hence, out of the four NDPS cases registered against the petitioner, petitioner has been acquitted in two cases and he has been enlarged on bail in two cases. 24. In the present case, from the ground of detention communicated to the petitioner, it is apparent that in the pending case, i.e., Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021, petitioner is involved in recovery of 200 kg of poppy straw and in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025, allegation against the petitioner is of opium cultivation in the forest area. 25. From, ground of detention, it also appears that out of the two pending cases registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act, oldest case registered against the petitioner was in the year 2021 being Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021 concerning in recovery of 200 kg of poppy straw. Thereafter, petitioner did not repent and again after four years in 2025, petitioner was found indulge in poppy cultivation in the forest area and for this Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025, was registered against him. 26. Hence, so far as release of the petitioner on bail, in the two pending cases, i.e., Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021 and in Bashishthnagar 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 18 P.S. Case no. 5/2025, registered under the NDPS Act is concerned, this Court finds that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that in spite of his continuous activities causing threat to maintenance of public order and in such circumstances, based on the relevant materials and satisfying itself, that it would not be possible to control his habituality in continuing the criminal activities by resorting the normal procedures, the Detaining Authority had passed an impugned order detaining him under the Act,1988. 27. Further, the ground of bail cannot be said to affect the decision taken by the competent authority of detention, rather the accusation so made in the First Information Report is to be seen for the purpose to have the subjective satisfaction of the nature of accusation made in the said FIR. 28. Since the detention order is to be passed by the competent authority anticipating the criminality of the concerned and it would be evident from the accusation made in the ground of detention communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 122 dated 15.01.2026, (Annexure-1) passed by the Respondent no. 2-Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, wherein inter alia aforesaid two pending NDPS cases registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act is mentioned. 29. The consideration of coming from judicial custody by virtue of order passed by the court to release on bail has been taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.M Nagaraja Versus Government of Karnataka and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 215 wherein detenue had challenged his detention order. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this case had noted in paragraph-17 that the even after release on bail detenue again 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 19 started indulging in the same type of offences, particularly, threatening the public life, damaging public property, etc. and hence, detenue appeal was dismissed. Further in paragraph-20 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court had noted the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order against the detenue, for ready reference Paragraph-17 and 20 of D.M. Nagaraja(supra) case is quoted herein below - "17. All the abovementioned details which have been correctly stated in the detention order clearly show that the appellant is not amenable to ordinary course of law. It also shows that even after his release on bail from the prison on various occasions, he again started indulging in the same type of offences, particularly, threatening the public life, damaging public property, etc. All these aspects have been meticulously considered by the detaining authority and after finding that in order to maintain public order, since his activities are prejudicial to the public, causing harm and danger, the detaining authority detained him as "goonda" under Karnataka Act 12 of 1985 for a period of 12 months and the same was rightly approved by the Advisory Board and the State Government. Inasmuch as the detaining authority has taken note of all the relevant materials and strictly followed all the safeguards as provided in the Act ensuring the liberty of the detenue, we are in entire agreement with the decision of the detaining authority as well as the impugned order of the High Court affirming the same." xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 20. In the case on hand, we have already extracted criminality, criminal activities starting from the age of 30 and details relating to eleven cases mentioned in the grounds of detention. It is not in dispute that in one case he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine years. He had been acquitted in two cases and four cases are pending against him wherein he was granted bail by the courts. It is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that in spite of his continuous activities causing threat to maintenance of public order, he was getting bail one after another and indulging in the same activities. In such circumstances, based on the relevant materials and satisfying itself, namely, that it would not be possible to control his habituality in continuing the criminal activities 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 20 by resorting to normal procedure, the detaining authority passed an order detaining him under Act 12 of 1985." 30. Further, regarding acquittal of the petitioner in two NDPS cases, this Court finds that the impugned detention order is dated 15.01.2026 and subsequently petitioner was acquitted in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 10/2014 and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 79/2018, by the learned Trial Court by order dated 17.01.2026 and 03.02.2026 respectively. Hence, on the date of passing of the impugned detention order dated 15.01.2026, petitioner was not acquitted from the said charges. 31. Therefore, the authority concerned while passing the impugned detention order which was passed on 15.01.2026 has taken into consideration the entire history of accusation against the petitioner and only thereafter has passed the order of detention. Hence, satisfaction has been arrived by the detaining authority bearing in mind existence of live and proximate link between the past conduct of a petitioner and material which is not stale. 32. Thus, from the impugned detention order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure-1), it is evident that the petitioner is habitually involved in offences relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substance, and further on the basis of subjective satisfaction the detaining authority has arrived to conclusion that the well-organized manner in which such pre- judicial activities have been carried on and nexus between dates of incidents and passing of the detention order and the said observation is according to the ratio led down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.M Nagaraja Versus Government of Karnataka and others(supra) 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 21 therefore, the said observation of the detaining authority cannot be said to be suffer from an error. 33. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal(supra), and has submitted that satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is based on incomplete and irrelevant material as acquittal dated 17.01.2026 and 03.02.2026 passed in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 10/2014 and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 79/2018 respectively, being vital and proximate development was not considered. 34. But, judgment of Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal(supra), is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case as impugned detention order is dated 15.01.2026 and subsequently petitioner was acquitted in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 10/2014, by order dated 17.01.2026 and in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 79/2018, by order dated 03.02.2026, hence, at the time of passing of the impugned detention order, petitioner was not acquitted of the charges. 35. Accordingly, Issue No.I has been answered herein. Re: Issue No. (II) 36. Regarding the second issue i.e. whether there is violation of section 3(3) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 in communicating ground of detention to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned detention order has been passed on 15.01.2026, but the ground of detention was communicated the petitioner on 30.01.2026. 37. Section 3(3) of the Act,1988 provides that for the purpose of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 22 detained in pursuance of a detention order, the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. 38. Thus, as per statutory provision, enumerated in section 3(3) of the Act,1988, time for communicating the ground of detention to the detenue commences from the date when detenue is taken in detention and it shall be communicated to the detenue within five days from the date of detention and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. However, even under exceptional circumstances, the communication shall not be made later than fifteen days from the date of detention. 39. The "grounds of detention" communicated under Section 3(3) must include all the basic facts, material documents, and statements relied upon by the detaining authority to reach its subjective satisfaction. The scope of this communication is to enable the detenu to make an effective, purposeful, and timely representation to the competent authorities and the Advisory Board. If the relevant materials or legible copies of the documents relied upon are not supplied within the stipulated period, the detenu's right to make an effective representation is frustrated, rendering the detention illegal. 40. The provision serves as a vital check and balance. While the Act, 1988, grants the executive extraordinary powers of preventive detention to combat the menace of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, Section 3(3) ensures constitutional accountability. The 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 23 subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, while generally afforded judicial deference, is subject to strict judicial scrutiny regarding adherence to these procedural safeguards. Any lapse in compliance with the statutory timelines results in the infringement of the detenu's personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, leading to the quashing of the detention order. 41. In the instant writ petition, petitioner has admitted that detention order was served upon him on 30.01.2026, while he was lodged on Chatera Jail in connection with Kunda P.S. Case no. 01/2001corropponding to S.T. No. 380/2018. 42. Hence, in the present case petitioner was detained under the impugned order on 30.01.2026 and on the same day i.e. on 30.01.2026 ground of detention was communicated to the petitioner, which is within five days as per statutory mandate provided under Section 3(3) of the Act,1988 and such communication falls well within the statutory period of five days as mandated under Section 3(3) of the Act, 1988, and this fact stands substantiated by Annexure-E filed on behalf of the respondent/State. 43. Hence, there is no violation of section 3(3) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 in communicating ground of detention to the petitioner. 44. Accordingly, issue no. (II) has been answered. 45. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 6 of the Act,1988, has no application to the facts of the present case and in this regard learned counsel has cited judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 24 of this Court in case of Charitra Kumar Dangi @ Chalitar Dangi V. State of Jharkhand” (supra). 46. In this regard, this Court finds that Section 6 of the Act,1988, deals with the situation when grounds of detention are severable. Section 6 provided that where a person has been detained on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds are vague, non- existent, not relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or invalid for any other reason whatsoever. It will be deemed that if one of the ground falls within the aforesaid categories, then it shall be deemed that the order of the detention is passed in reference to the remaining ground. 47. Thus, the statutory text stipulates that if a person has been detained under a preventive detention order issued pursuant to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act, and such an order has been made on two or more grounds, the order of detention is to be treated as having been made separately on each of those grounds. 48. In ordinary administrative law, if an order is based on subjective satisfaction arising from multiple grounds, the invalidity of one ground can strike down the entire order because a court cannot easily determine if the authority would have reached the same satisfaction based on the surviving grounds alone. Section 6 creates a statutory exception to this rule. It ensures that a preventive detention order under Section 3(1) does not automatically fail in its entirety if one or more of the multiple grounds cited are found to be defective, vague, irrelevant, or non-existent. Thus, Section 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 25 6 supports the legislative intent by allowing the detention to stand on any remaining sound grounds, thereby preventing the release of individuals involved in drug trafficking due to technical defects in some of the stated reasons. 49. In the preceding paragraph it has already been discussed that two cases, i.e., in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021 and in Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025, registered under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021, is related to recovery of 200 KG of Poppy Straw and the case is in Evidence stage and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025, which is related to Opium Cultivation, Charge sheet has been submitted. 50. In the present case detaining authority has noted in impugned detention order that it is necessary to detain the petitioner to forbade him from indulging in smuggling/illegal production of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in future. Hence, in the present case ground of detention is based on relevant and cogent material, which cannot be discarded. 51. The fact of the judgment of the case passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Charitra Kumar Dangi @ Chalitar Dangi V. State of Jharkhand [ W.P(Cr.) No.557 of 2024], which is being relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that four cases were mentioned in the detention order against the detenue out of which three cases were related to NDPS Act and one case was related to offences under IPC. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court had noted that detenue was acquitted in the three cases related to NDPS Act and in the case related the offences 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 26 under the IPC, detenue was convicted under section 147,148,332,324,427 and 504 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment by the learned Trial Court. But, the Appellate Court had modified the judgment and had convicted him under Section 323,353 and 149 of IPC and released him after due admonition as per provision of the Probation of the Offenders Act. 52. Hence, a co-ordinate Bench noted that detention order was based on incomplete materials and the basis of satisfaction was incomplete and there was only one ground of detention, there is no applicability of section 6 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. 53. But, in the present case two cases, i.e., Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021, relating to recovery of 200 KG of Poppy Straw and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025, concerning Opium Cultivation, registered under the NDPS Act are pending against the petitioner. 54. Hence, in the present case, ground of detention is based on relevant and cogent material, which is not vague, therefore, impugned order of detention said to be validly passed by taking the unambiguous ground. 55. Further, Judgment of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu(supra) relied on by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case as in the present case though petitioner has been acquitted in two NDPS cases registered against him, but, even then also two cases, i.e, Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 51/2021 and Bashishthnagar P.S. Case no. 5/2025, which are also registered under the NDPS Act against the petitioner are pending. Hence, satisfaction has been arrived by the 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 27 detaining authority bearing in mind existence of live and proximate link between the past conduct of a petitioner and material which is not stale. 56. So far as question of applicability of the ratio rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and others, (supra) is concerned, it is evident that in the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a Constitutional Court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine whether the order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted herein which reads as under: “27. Be that as it may, culling out the principles of law flowing from all the relevant decisions in the field, our understanding of the law for deciding the legality of an order of preventive detention is that even without appropriate pleadings to assail such an order, if circumstances appear therefrom raising a doubt of the detaining authority misconceiving his own powers, the Court ought not to shut its eyes; even not venturing to make any attempt to investigate the sufficiency of the materials, an enquiry can be made by the Court into the authority's notions of his power. Without being remotely concerned about the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials on which detention has been ordered, the Court would be justified to draw a conclusion, on proof from the order itself, that the detaining authority failed to realise the extent of his own powers. This is quite apart from questioning the action for want of sufficient materials that were before the detaining authority. The authority for the detention is the order of detention itself, which the detenu or the Court can read. Such a reading of the order would disclose the manner in which the 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 28 activity of the detenu was viewed by the detaining authority to be prejudicial to maintenance of public order and what exactly he intended should not be permitted to happen. Any order of a detaining authority evincing that the same runs beyond his powers, as are actually conferred, would not amount to a valid order made under the governing preventive detention law and be vulnerable on a challenge being laid. 28. In the circumstances of a given case, a constitutional court when called upon to test the legality of orders of preventive detention would be entitled to examine whether: 28.1. The order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied; 28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute; 28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires; 28.4. The detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body; 28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorised by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case; 28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate; 28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on 28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 29 rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached; 28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and 28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to.” 57. There is no dispute as to the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Applying the said guidelines to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that it is apparent from the impugned order that the detention order has been passed by the competent authority on the basis of anticipated criminality of the petitioner. This is evident from the accusations set forth in the grounds of detention communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 122 dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure-1), issued by Respondent No. 2, the Additional Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, wherein, inter alia, reference is made to the two pending NDPS cases registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act. 58. It is, thus, clear that the authority concerned has duly considered the material available on record and has passed the impugned detention order based upon its subjective satisfaction. In reaching such satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances, without reliance upon any extraneous material beyond the scope and purpose of the statute. Accordingly, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court stands fully complied with herein. 2026:JHHC:21721-DB 30 59. On the basis of discussions made hereinabove, this Court, therefore, is of the view that the impugned order of detention needs no interference. 60. Accordingly, the detention order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Respondent No.2, are hereby sustained and upheld. 61. The instant writ petition stands dismissed. 62. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Sudhir Dated:21/07/2026 Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi AFR Uploaded on 22/07/2026