Jharkhand High Court Quashes Prevention Detention Based On Station Diary Entries, Questions State For Not Lodging FIR If Crime Was Made Out

The Jharkhand High Court quashed a preventive detention order issued under Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act against a man by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum based on certain station diary entries, while questioning the State as to what prevented it to first lodge an FIR. 

The court pointed out that Station Diary Entries or Sanhas cannot be a ground for keeping a person in custody, especially when it has not led to any criminal case.

A division bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava in its order said:

"So far as the Station Diary Entries (Sanhas) are concerned, it is an admitted case that those have not culminated in any criminal case. Merely entering Station Diary Entry alleging some acts cannot be the ground to detain a person. It is surprising that if the acts mentioned in the Station Diary Entries are criminal acts and are cognizable in nature, then why the State has not filed any First Information Report. Law provides that if cognizable offence is committed and is brought to the knowledge of any authority, First Information Report should be lodged. The Deputy Commissioner is the Head of the Prosecution of the District and he has passed the impugned order and has referred to Sanhas (Station Diary Entries). If at all those acts mentioned in Sanhas (Station Diary Entries) make out any criminal offence, what prevented the State to file a First Information Report is a mystery for us. We, thus, conclude that those Station Diary Entries are made only for the purpose of keeping the petitioner in detention without there being any basis". 

The court further said that the liberty of a citizen is paramount and cannot be whimsically curtailed by the state authorities.

It said, “Liberty of a citizen of our country must be kept at the highest pedestal. Same cannot be curtailed on the whims and wishes of any of the officials of the State. Not only there has to be a good reason to curtail the said liberty, but that reason has to be strong enough and the evidence should be impeccable.”

The petitioner had argued that the preventive detention order lacked merit as he was neither a habitual offender nor an anti-social element as defined under Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. It was submitted that the authorities had attempted to escalate a law and order issue into a public order problem. The petitioner further stated that three of the seven cases listed against him had either resulted in acquittal or had no substantial charges, and he was on bail in the others. One of the cases pertained to the fraudulent sale of government land, which the petitioner contended was not significant enough to disturb public order.

In contrast, the respondent-state argued that the petitioner posed a threat to public safety and that Station Diary Entries indicated his involvement in several criminal activities.

Analyzing the case, the High Court noted that the detention order was later extended and referred to seven cases cited by the state. The court found that two of these cases had already resulted in final forms favoring the petitioner or bail orders, while the allegations in the case regarding the sale of government land did not amount to a public order disturbance. The remaining cases were characterized as law and order problems, which the court distinguished from issues of public order.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Arjun S/o Ratan Gaikwad versus The State of Maharashtra & Others] reported in 2024 INSC 968, whereby the Apex Court had emphasized that a person has to create ruckus by his behavior and continue with such activities, in a manner to create a terror in the minds of the public at large, then only he is a threat to the public order. In the present case, the High Court found that missing.

Additionally, reliance was placed on Abhimanyu Singh @ Sintu Singh versus The State of Jharkhand & Others [W.P.(Cr.) No. 868 of 2024], which clarified that a person should be habitual in committing offences, which would create negative impact and terror in the mind of the public at large and the society.

The High Court further rejected the contention of the state that detention was necessary for the proper conduction of Assembly Elections, terming it unsubstantiated and excessive. It said, “If this becomes a ground, then the same will amount to giving unbridled, uncanalised sweeping power to the administration to detain any person under the Act during the time of election, it will be nothing, but playing with the liberty of citizens.”

The court added that the Assembly Elections were already over, so the argument was irrelevant.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the detention order, underscoring that the petitioner's liberty could not be curtailed without substantial evidence or valid justification.

Case Title: Ganesh Singh @ Nishant Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 1

Click Here To Download Judgement