Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma dismissed a habeas corpus writ petition challenging the preventive detention of a petitioner under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The Court upheld the detention order issued by the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Authority, Durg Division, Durg, holding that the preventive action was valid and that no illegality or irregularity had been committed in passing the impugned order.

A writ petition was filed seeking multiple reliefs, including setting aside the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Authority, Durg Division, Durg, and the petitioner's immediate release from jail. Additionally, the petitioner requested compensation of ₹1,00,000 for alleged mental harassment and illegal detention.

Also Read: Supreme Court: FIRs Against Borrowers Stand Despite Loan Fraud Classification Being Set Aside I "FIR Sets Law Into Motion" Without Prior Hearing

The facts reveal that the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Authority issued a show cause notice dated 19.09.2024 to the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The notice alleged that the petitioner was a habitual offender engaging in the sale of narcotic drugs and contraband, causing addiction among youth and children, and contributing to associated criminal activities.

The notice further stated that the petitioner had been previously apprehended twice for selling narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Preventive action under the Code of Criminal Procedure had also been initiated, but no improvement was observed in his conduct.

In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed affidavit dated 20.12.2024. He asserted that the allegations were based on false and fabricated grounds, emphasizing that of the five offences cited, only two cases under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act were pending, and the remaining three pertained to preventive actions that had already been disposed of. The petitioner pointed out that he had not been convicted in any criminal case thus far and highlighted that in one pending NDPS case, four independent witnesses had turned hostile, undermining the prosecution's case.

He argued that the entire proceedings before the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Authority were arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. He further alleged that the impugned order was passed solely based on the Istagasa report prepared by the Superintendent of Police, without producing any witnesses to support the allegations or granting him the opportunity to present a defense.

The petitioner also cited precedents from the Supreme Court, including D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, to support his contentions regarding unlawful detention and procedural safeguards.

The State, through the Deputy Government Advocate, opposed the petition, supporting the legality of the detention order and asserting that it was warranted in the circumstances.

Upon hearing both sides, the High Court carefully examined the impugned order, the material on record, the petitioner's conduct, and the findings of the Detaining Authority before rendering its verdict.

The Division Bench recorded, “From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Commissioner-cum-Detaining Authority has observed that action has been taken by registering a total of 02 cases of the NDPS Act against petitioner Sheshnarayan Sahu S/o Late Sitaram Sahu in the year 2023 and 2024.”

It was further stated, “Apart from this, action has been taken by registering preventive cases against the petitioner from time to time.”

The Court noted that the Commissioner had observed, “After being released from jail, the petitioner has been continuously involved in criminal activities and there seems to be no improvement in his behaviour.”

Additionally, it was recorded, “Even at present, complaints of selling alcohol and other intoxicants including ganja have been continuously received against the petitioner.”

The judgment continued, “The statement of the independent witness has brought to light the fact that petitioner Sheshnarayan Sahu is continuously selling ganja/alcohol in the village.”

It was specifically observed that, “The petitioner’s morale is increasing after being released on bail from the Court.”

The Court referred to the Commissioner’s finding that, “The petitioner has become addicted to illegal trade of narcotics like alcohol and ganja.” The Commissioner also noted that, “The possibility of adverse effect of the petitioner’s criminal activities on his living in society cannot be ruled out.”

Evaluating the findings, the Court concluded, “Based on the report, reply, statements of the witnesses and arguments in the case, it has been decided that petitioner Sheshnarayan Sahu S/o Late Sitaram Sahu is involved in illegal trade of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and hence, it is necessary to detain him.”

The Court finally observed, “Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and other documents appended with writ petition, conduct of the petitioner and the finding recorded by learned Commissioner by which the petitioner has been ordered to send behind the bar for a period of six months under Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Act of 1988, we are of the considered opinion that learned Commissioner has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court: Divorced Wife’s Right to Interim Maintenance Cannot Be Waived by Private Agreements I Upholds Statutory Safeguards Under Domestic Violence Act and Directs Compliance Within

The Division Bench issued its final order stating, “Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).”

Thus, the Court affirmed the detention of the petitioner for a period of six months under Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, and refused to grant any relief sought, including compensation for alleged mental harassment and illegal detention.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Ms. Smita Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents-State: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate

Case Title: Sheshnarayan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:18791-DB
Case Number: WPCR No. 229 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

[Read/Download order]