Sanjay Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. Heard Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghe, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State.

¶21

2

¶22

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶23

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 in Case No. 202410990100042/B-121/NDPS/Year 2024-25, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive step against the petitioner for detention pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.04.2025.

¶24

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶25

3. By way of instant petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the respondent No. 2 exercising to power under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Trafc in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (for fi short, ‘Act of 1988’) has passed an order of detention, whereby the petitioner has been detained for the period of 03 months in jail.

¶26

4. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that a Istagasa was produced in respect of petitioner by the respondent No. 1 under Section 03 of the Act of 1988 before the respondent No. 2, subsequently on the basis of which the proceedings under the Act of 1988 was initiated before the respondent No. 2, where the case was registered as Case

¶27

3

¶28

No.202410990100042/B-121/NDPS/Year 2024-25. In the proceedings, the statement of Station House Ofcer, Pamgarh, was recorded wherein it fi was submitted that there was frequent information against the petitioner for illicit sale of contraband and also complaints were received and during the record inspection two criminal record relating to the NDPS has been fled, but one of it, the petitioner has been acquitted and in one case, the i same is pending for its trial. It was also reported that even after above proceedings there was no correction in the status of the petitioner and there is complaint against the petitioner to be involved in the illicit Trafcking of Contraband and he is a habitual of fi ender, thus f recommendation was made for detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1988. The petitioner was provided with the Istagasa and other documents and the reply was sought and the statement was also recorded, wherein the petitioner denied the allegations and it was submitted that he has been acquitted in the both the charges stated above and he prayed for rejection of the proceeding initiated under the Act of 1988. Subsequently after considering the documents and the material on record, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby in light of Section 3 read with Section 10 of the Act of 1988, the respondent No. 2 came to the fnding that the petitioner i was involved in two crimes for trafcking of Ganja and there is fi apprehension that he would continued the same and thus, in the light of Section 10 of the Act of 1988, the petitioner has been directed to be detained for the period of 03 months. Hence, this petition.

¶29

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned dated 22.04.2025 is illegal, as the same has been passed relying upon

¶30

4

¶31

the Istagasa as per which, the petitioner was involved in the two crime numbers registered against him in the year 2016 and 2024 for ofence f punishable under the NDPS Act and he is a habitual ofender, whereas f there is no material on record to show that at present the petitioner is involved in the illicit Trafcking of Contraband and therefore, the order fi impugned is liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the impugned order dated 22.04.2025, which goes to show that the detention period of petitioner expired on 21.07.2025.

¶32

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there are two criminal cases registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act in the year 2016 and 2024 and in the case of year 2024, the trial is still pending and it was also reported that even after above proceedings there was no correction in the status of the petitioner and there is complaint against the petitioner to be involved in the illicit Trafcking of Contraband fi and he is a habitual ofender, thus recommendation was made for f detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1988.

¶33

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

¶34

8. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that there are two criminal cases registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act in the year 2016 and 2024 and in the case of 2016, the petitioner has already been acquitted, but in the case of 2024, the trial is still pending and it was also reported that even after above proceedings there was no correction in the status of the petitioner

¶35

5

¶36

and there is complaint against the petitioner to be involved in the illicit Trafcking of Contraband and he is a habitual of fi ender, thus f recommendation was made for detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1988.

¶37

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not fnd any illegality or inf i i rmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the present petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . Sd/-

¶38

Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶39

Brijmohan

Sanjay Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Sahu 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

Mukchund Ram Rajwade Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Pratik Kumar Jaisawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hunnaid Hussain Vs State of M.P.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of M.P.

Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Vs Sunil Kumar Sahu