Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based on Mere Apprehension | Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Order Passed Without Fresh Offence or Concrete Evidence
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru set aside a preventive detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The court held that the detention order was not supported by recent or concrete material indicating the petitioner’s involvement in illegal activities. It concluded that the detention was based merely on apprehensions and unsubstantiated statements, and therefore, lacked the legal foundation required to justify such a serious measure.
In its directive, the court categorically stated that the detention order dated 22/05/2025 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Authority, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, must be set aside. The court also directed the immediate release of the petitioner, provided he was not required in any other case. The judgement underscores the judicial mandate that preventive detention must be firmly grounded in concrete evidence and not merely on speculative or anticipatory grounds.
The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 22/05/2025 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Authority, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (referred to as the Act of 1988). The order directed the detention of the petitioner for six months in Central Jail, Jagdalpur, based on allegations of repeated involvement in illicit narcotic activities.
According to the petition, the respondent authorities had submitted an ‘Istagasa’ (complaint or report) under Section 3 of the Act of 1988. This was accompanied by a statement from the concerned Station House Officer, indicating that the petitioner had been subject to multiple complaints alleging his involvement in the sale of contraband substances. It was noted that a prior FIR No. 411/2022 had been registered under Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), following which the petitioner was granted bail.
Additionally, another case, Crime No. 262/2023, had been registered under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act. In this instance, the petitioner admitted to the offence and was subsequently sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 75 days along with a fine of Rs. 15,000/-. The Commissioner concluded from this information that the petitioner had a habitual tendency to engage in illegal narcotic trafficking.
The petitioner, in response, denied the allegations in his recorded statement. He submitted that he had been acquitted in both crime numbers mentioned by the authorities and that there was no ongoing or recent criminal case against him. He asserted that the detention order was passed without due consideration of his reply and without affording him the opportunity of a personal hearing.
The petitioner further contended that the detention order lacked a sound legal basis. It was argued that there was no fresh offence recorded against him and that the conclusion regarding his alleged habitual criminality was arbitrary and unsupported by tangible evidence. The detention, he submitted, was therefore illegal and devoid of application of mind.
On the other hand, the State, represented by counsel, argued that the petitioner’s prior involvement in narcotic cases and the associated allegations justified the preventive detention. The State stated that even though one case was pending and in another the petitioner had admitted guilt, the objective of the detention was to prevent further illegal activity.
The State asserted that the impugned order had been passed strictly in accordance with law and that the detention was necessary in the public interest to curb illicit narcotics trafficking.
The court examined the materials and submissions provided by both parties. Referring to the foundation of the detention order, the bench noted, "The Commissioner, has passed its order only on the basis of oral evidence of Station House Officer, who stated that there was frequent information against the petitioner for illicit sale of contraband and also complaints were received."
It further recorded, "The consideration of the Commissioner, is based on only apprehension that the petitioner is indulge in illegal activities for which they received inputs but there is no concrete material to draw the conclusion that the petitioner indulge in illegal activities."
The bench stated the lack of recent criminal activity by stating, "From the material available on record it is also evident that fresh incident has not been recorded." It observed that "false allegations and several complaints received against the petitioner cannot be a ground to detain the present petitioner."
The court noted that the petitioner's response had not been adequately taken into account and that he was not given an opportunity for a personal hearing. It acknowledged the petitioner's submission that he had been acquitted in all the referenced cases, stating, "There is no recent offence registered against the petitioner and in the reply the petitioner has already submitted that he has already acquitted in all the previous crime numbers."
Critically evaluating the respondent's reliance on the statement of the Station House Officer and earlier convictions, the court recorded, "No new offence have been registered against the petitioner and there is no sufficient material against the petitioner to conclude that he actively engaged in the illegal activities or trafficking the narcotic drugs."
On the evidentiary standards required for preventive detention, the bench reflected, "The impugned order itself, as well as the document annexed with the petition, it is quite vivid that the petitioner is actively engaged in illegal activities... but there is no concrete material."
The High Court held that the impugned detention order did not meet the required legal threshold. It stated, "We, therefore, do not found any sufficient ground to uphold the order passed by the Commissioner, Jagdalpur, dated 22/5/2025 (Annexure-P/1)."
The court directed the annulment of the detention order, stating, "In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22/5/2025 is set aside."
The court further directed the immediate release of the petitioner from custody, stating, "The petitioner is reported to be in jail, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case."
Accordingly, the bench allowed the writ petition and concluded the matter, declaring, "In the result, the present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Government Advocate
Case Title: Satyanarayan Soni @ Babu Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:23752-DB
Case Number: WPCR No. 315 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
[Read/Download order]
