Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai held that once the Advisory Board has approved a preventive-detention order and the State Government has issued its confirmatory order, no further approval of the Board is required for later extensions. The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a preventive-detention order issued under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, concerning allegations that the detenu, treated as an “anti-social element,” was involved in repeated criminal activities warranting preventive custody. The petitioner had questioned both his classification under the Act and the legality of consecutive three-month extensions of detention, but the Court concluded that the State was competent to continue the detention without seeking fresh approval from the Advisory Board.

The matter concerns a preventive-detention order issued under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 against a detenu residing in Latehar district. The Superintendent of Police recommended initiation of proceedings under Section 12(2), citing multiple FIRs and sanhas relating to alleged criminal activities, including extortion, offences under the Arms Act, attempt to murder, and obstruction of government work. Acting on this recommendation, the District Magistrate passed the initial detention order on 18 November 2024, which was later approved by the State Government following the Advisory Board’s opinion. The detention was specified for three months beginning 18 November 2024.

Also Read: Withholding Without Returning Defies Federalism; Governor Cannot Keep Bill Pending Without Sending It Back To Assembly: Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

After the initial period, the State Government issued successive extensions of three months each. These orders extended detention from February to May 2025, May to August 2025, and August to November 2025. The petitioner challenged these extensions, asserting that no fresh grounds were provided and that he did not fall within the statutory definition of an “anti-social element” under Section 2(d). He further contended that each extension required renewed approval from the Advisory Board.

The State argued that the petitioner habitually engaged in serious offences and that preventive detention was necessary to maintain public order. It submitted that initial approval by the Advisory Board and issuance of the confirmatory order empowered the Government to continue detention within the statutory maximum period.

The Court recorded that several FIRs and sanhas had been registered against the petitioner and that the detaining authority was satisfied that “continuous criminal activities of the petitioner was causing threat to maintenance of public order.”

On defining the petitioner as an anti-social element, the Court referred to Section 2(d) and stated that it “requires a pattern of behaviour, not isolated incidents,” and after examining the listed criminal cases it recorded that “the act of the petitioner comes under the purview of the ‘Anti-social Elements’ as stipulated under Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002.”

Regarding the statutory basis for preventive detention, the Court reiterated that Section 12 permits detention “if there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person.” The Bench acknowledged that the initial detention order had been duly approved by the Advisory Board and confirmed by the State Government.

On the dispute over Advisory Board approval for extensions, the Court recorded that “the State Government need not review the orders of detention every three months after it has passed the confirmatory order.” The judgment further noted that “the Act does not contemplate a review of the detention order once the Advisory Board has opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the person concerned and, on that basis, a confirmatory order is passed by the State Government to detain a person for the maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention.”

On that basis, the Court held that “no approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention” and concluded that the extensions issued by the State “need not require to interfere with.”

Also Read: Husband Cannot Invoke Muslim Personal Law For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights After Marrying Under Section 22 Special Marriage Act ; Jharkhand High Court

The Court held that “no approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention.”

The Court directed that “the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 extending the detention order and subsequent orders of extension of detention dated 16.05.2025 and 11.08.2025 extending the period of preventive detention need not require to interfere with.  The instant writ petition stands dismissed.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Miss Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II; Mr. Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG-II

Case Title: Upendra Yadav @ Bhupendra Yadav @ Bhupesh Ji v. State of Jharkhand & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:34282-DB
Case Number: W.P. (Cr.) No.255 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Arun Kumar Rai