Dismissed¶42

Rajni Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Mar 2025CRMP/474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preventive detention; PITNDPS Act, 1988 Ss.3 & 10; S.528 BNSS Act, 2023; Commissioner-cum-Detaining Officer Raipur; Ishtagasa by Superintendent of Police Balodabazar; ganja/cannabis trafficking antecedents 2006, 2010, 2023; Crime No.816/23; six-month detention in Central Jail; no jurisdictional error or prejudice; CRMP No. 474 of 2025 dismissed by Arvind Kumar Verma, J., High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, order dated 18/03/2025 (NAFR).

What did the court decide?

Detention is valid when the detaining authority is conscious about the previous antecedents of the detenu registered under the NDPS Act. ¶29

Rajni Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of detention dated 08/01/2025 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Officer, Raipur against the applicant is bad in law, unsustainable and liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Detention is valid when the detaining authority is conscious about the previous antecedents of the detenu registered under the NDPS Act.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Prejudice has to be established; where it is not established, it does not in any manner prejudice the detenu for making a representation.

¶29

Key takeaways

Perusal of the impugned order shows the applicant was arrested in 2006 and 2010 for cannabis offences and, after obtaining bail in those two crimes, continued trafficking; in 2023 she was again transporting Cannabis and Crime No.816/23 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act was registered against her, in connection with which she was arrested.ratio¶38
The authorized officer i.e. the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Officer, Raipur was satisfied that detention was necessary to prevent the detenue from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and made an order of detention for six months as per the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 1988; the order so passed is neither illegal nor perverse.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRMP (S.528, BNSS Act, 2023) against detention order dt. 08/01/2025 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Officer, Raipur in Case No.36-B-121/2024 under S.3, PITNDPS Act, 1988, directing six-month detention of the applicant in Central Jail on an Ishtagasa by SP Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara citing NDPS antecedents (arrests in 2006, 2010 and 2023; Crime No.816/23 u/S 20(B), NDPS Act): HELD, detention is valid where the detaining authority is conscious of the detenu's previous antecedents registered under the NDPS Act; prejudice must be established and none was found; the authorised officer's satisfaction under S.10 of the Act, 1988 made the order neither illegal nor perverse, with no jurisdictional error and no prejudice to the detenu; CRMP dismissed.

1 / 7

2025:CGHC:12863

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 474 of 2025

¶6

1 - Rajni Dubey S/o Late Ramesh Dubey Aged About 58 Years R/o Bhaisapasra P.S City Kotwali Balodabazar District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Balodabazar Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶10

2 - The Superintendent Of Police Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

18/03/2025

¶15

The instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS Act, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 08/01/2025 passed by the Court of Commissioner-cum-Detaining Officer, Raipur, District Raipur, in Case No.36-B-121 Year 2024 whereby on the basis of the Ishtagasa produced by the Superintendent of Police, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,

¶16

ASHUTOSHMISHRA Digitally signedby ASHUTOSHMISHRADate:2025.03.2610:49:58+0530

¶17

2 / 7

¶18

C.G. for taking action under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988), the proceedings have been initiated against the applicant and she has been directed to be detained in Central Jail for the period of six months.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.2 has filed an application /Ishtagasa before the Court of Commissioner-cumDetaining Officer, Raipur, District Raipur under Section 3 subsection (1) of the Act, 1988 against the applicant, which was registered as Case No.36-B-121 Year 2024 and the proceedings have been initiated against her. During trial on behalf of the Complainant i.e. Respondent No.2, the SHO, Police Station City Kotwali, has been examined before the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Officer, Raipur and he in his statement has stated that three cases were registered against the applicant under the NDPS Act and the chargesheet has been filed against her and she has been acquitted in one case. The aforesaid cases was of the year 2006 and after being released in the said case on bail, the applicant was again involved in the same crime. Thereafter, in the year 2023 she was again smuggling illicit Marijuana, where upon she was arrested and sent in jail and again after release on bail she is continuously involved in the illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

¶20

Court of Commissioner-cum-Detaining Officer, Raipur has provided the copy of the Ishtagsa as well as documents and also recorded the

¶21

3 / 7

¶22

statement of the applicant and she was also provided opportunity to file reply. The applicant in her statement admitted that she was arrested in the year 2006 in connection with the offence punishable under the NDPS Act and she denied the fact of recovery of Ganja from her and also stated that she never smuggled the Ganja and the false allegations have been leveled against her.

¶23

The Commissioner-cum-Detaining Officer after evaluating the facts and evidence available on record ordered for imprisonment of the applicant for six months. Hence this petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the order of detention against the applicant is bad and is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law because the learned Commissioner-cum-Detaining Officer without appreciating the facts and evidence in its true perspective has illegally passed the order of detention against the applicant. He would lastly pray that the impugned order may be quashed and the instant petition may be allowed.

¶25

Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned order of detention and would oppose the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that the instant CRMP may be dismissed.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

¶27

Perusal of the record would show that the learned Commissioner-

¶28

4 / 7

¶29

cum-Detaining Officer has given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The detention is valid when detaining authority is conscious about the previous antecedents of the detenu, which has been registered against the detenu against the under the NDPS Act. It is well settled that prejudice has to be established and if it is not done, it does not in any manner prejudice the detenu for making a representation.

¶30

Section 3 & Section 10 of the Act 1988 reads as under:-

¶31

3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.— (1) The Central Government or a State Government, or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.

¶32

(2)When any order of detention is made by a State Government or by an officer empowered by a State Government, the State Government shall, within ten days, forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the

¶33

5 / 7

¶34

order.

¶35

(3) For the purposes of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. 10. Cases in which and circumstances under which persons may be detained for periods longer than three months without obtaining the opinion of Advisory Board. —(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person (including a foreigner) in respect of whom an order of detention is made under this Act at any time before the 31st day of July, 1999, may be detained without obtaining, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of article 22 of the Constitution, the opinion of an Advisory Board for a period longer than three months but not exceeding six months from the date of his detention, where the order of detention has been made against such person with a view to preventing him from engaging in traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of an Additional Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that

¶36

6 / 7

¶37

Government, is satisfied that such person engages or is likely to engage in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into, out of, through or within any area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic and makes a declaration to that effect within five weeks of the detention of such person.

¶38

Perusal of the impugned order would show that the applicant was arrested in the year 2006 for the offence punishable under Section NDPS Act and illegal cannabis was recovered from her possession. Likewise, in the year 2010 she was also arrested for illegal trafficking of the Cannabis. After getting bail in aforesaid two crimes she continued in such illegal activities of trafficking of the cannabis and again in the year 2023 she was illegally transporting the Cannabis and a case bearing Crime No.816/23 under Section 20 (B) of the NDPS Act has been registered against her and she was arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime.

¶39

In the instant case, the authorized person i.e. Commissioner-cumDetaining Officer, Raipur was satisfied that with respect to detenue that with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, made an order directing that such person be detained for the period of six months as per the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 1988. Therefore, the order passed by the authorized officer i.e. the Commissioner-cum-Detaining Officer, Raipur Division is neither illegal nor perverse and there is no arbitrary order passed by the

¶40

7 / 7

¶41

Commissioner and further there is no jurisdictional error committed by the competent authority and I have also not found that any prejudice has been caused to the detenu.

¶42

Therefore, considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and also considering the provisions of Section 1988, I am not inclined to allow the instant CRMP. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶43

SD/-

¶44

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶45

ashu

Rajni Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajni Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Jagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Kumar Arya Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Kumar Arya Vs Mr. Ashok Juneja

Anirudh Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anand Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhupendra Yadav @ Dadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh