No Detention Without Justifiable Grounds | Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Preventive Custody Order | Calls Out Violation of Article 21 and Ignoring Prior Acquittal
Safiya Malik
The Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, set aside the detention of a man previously acquitted under the NDPS Act. The Court categorically stated that an individual acquitted in a criminal trial cannot be subjected to preventive detention on the same grounds without fresh, substantiated evidence justifying the necessity for such detention.
The Bench, while disposing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, held that the impugned detention order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Authority under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter "the Act, 1988") is unsustainable. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. However, the Court did not grant compensation for the alleged illegal detention.
The writ petition was filed by Shatrughan Chandra, a 30-year-old resident of Jaijaipur, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. The petitioner had previously been prosecuted under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act in 2018, but was acquitted by the trial court on 16.01.2019. According to the pleadings, there had been no subsequent criminal complaints or proceedings against him since that acquittal.
Despite this, on 10.09.2024, the Station House Officer of Jaijaipur submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, Sakti, requesting action under the Act, 1988 on the allegation that the petitioner remained involved in narcotics activities. This communication was followed by a series of correspondences culminating in the initiation of Istagasa proceedings under Sections 3(1) and 10 of the Act, 1988 by the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Authority on 23.09.2024, which was registered as Case No. 202409990100106/B-121/2024.
The petitioner was served notice and cooperated fully with the proceedings, including submission of a written reply on 13.02.2025, asserting that he had already been acquitted and was not involved in any current criminal activity. However, the Detaining Authority passed the impugned order on 20.03.2025, directing his detention for three months.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.K. Jha, submitted that the detention was based solely on the Istagasa report prepared by the Superintendent of Police, which alleged—without corroborative evidence—that the petitioner continued to engage in the sale of Ganja. It was contended that no seizure, arrest, or independent investigation had been conducted, and no new FIR had been registered.
It was argued that such preventive detention violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it lacked any material evidence, procedural safeguards, or justification beyond the previously adjudicated matter in which the petitioner had been acquitted.
The State, represented by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate, supported the validity of the detention order and opposed the petition.
The Division Bench observed that preventive detention must be exercised with caution and cannot rest merely on surmises or prior accusations that have culminated in acquittal.
Referring to the petitioner’s prior acquittal on 16.01.2019, the Court recorded: "Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that petitioner has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court... and for the very same offence under the provisions of NDPS Act, he cannot be detained in the police custody for a period of three months."
The Court also noted procedural lapses in the conduct of the authorities, including failure to substantiate fresh involvement of the petitioner in illicit traffic. The Bench cited Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P., [(1994) 4 SCC 260], wherein the Supreme Court held: "No arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest."
Quoting D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, [(1997) 1 SCC 416], the Court reaffirmed the safeguards that must be adhered to during arrest and detention, including timely communication to relatives, preparation of a memo of arrest, and regular medical examination.
It was recorded: "A worst case of violation of human rights took place during arrest made by the Police..." The Bench stated that preventive detention, which denies an individual’s liberty, cannot be sustained in absence of a reasonable, just, and lawful basis.
The judgment elaborated on procedural obligations as per D.K. Basu guidelines, including:
- "The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 18 hours during his detention in custody..."
- "Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest... should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record."
These procedural safeguards, the Court noted, were conspicuously absent in the petitioner’s case.
Accordingly, the Division Bench issued the following directions:
- "The impugned order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby set-aside."
- "The petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case."
- The Court, however, declined the prayer for compensation: "The petitioner shall not be entitled for any compensation."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. Tapan Chandra, Advocates
For the State/Respondents: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate
Case Title: Shatrughan Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:19555-DB
Case Number: WPCR No. 252 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
[Read/Download order]
