News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 35
Ranchi, January 06, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has declined to interfere with a preventive detention order passed against Bipin Bihari Singh alias Dipu Singh, holding that the State government followed due process under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, and that the delay alleged by the petitioner was adequately explained.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai delivered the judgment on 6 January 2026 while dismissing W.P. (Cr.) (DB) No. 662 of 2025. The court upheld the detention order dated 30 July 2025 issued by the Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand, under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act.
The petitioner had challenged his detention primarily on the ground of delay, arguing that the proposal for preventive detention was initiated in December 2024 while the final order was passed more than seven months later. He also contended that since he had already been granted bail in two criminal cases registered under the NDPS Act, his continued detention was illegal and arbitrary. According to him, the detention order lacked proper reasoning and failed to show any immediate necessity for preventive custody.
The State, however, defended the order by placing the complete administrative record before the court. It pointed out that the proposal moved through multiple levels, beginning with the officer in charge of Chakulia Police Station, then the Senior Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner, before reaching the Home Department. During this period, the government sought detailed reports on the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, custody status and the likelihood of his resuming narcotics trafficking if released. The State also highlighted that the petitioner was allegedly involved in multiple NDPS cases, including recoveries of commercial quantities of ganja from different jurisdictions.
After examining the record, the High Court held that preventive detention, though a serious invasion of personal liberty, is constitutionally permissible when statutory safeguards are followed with care. The Bench noted that the delay in issuing the detention order was not mechanical or unexplained but arose from the need for the detaining authority to reach a genuine subjective satisfaction after calling for and examining relevant material. The court observed that such scrutiny is essential to avoid arbitrariness and cannot be treated as an illegal delay.
On the issue of bail, the Bench clarified that grant of bail in criminal cases does not automatically bar preventive detention. What matters is the assessment of the detaining authority that ordinary criminal law may be insufficient to prevent a person from engaging in activities prejudicial to public order. In this case, the authorities had relied on multiple pending cases involving large quantities of narcotic substances and recorded their satisfaction that continued detention was necessary in the larger public interest.
Finding no violation of Article 22 of the Constitution or the procedural requirements under the PITNDPS Act, the court concluded that the detention order did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the detention of the petitioner for the confirmed period of one year was allowed to continue.
Case Reference : W.P. (Cr.) (DB) No. 662 of 2025, Bipin Bihari Singh @ Dipu Singh, East Singhbhum vs State of Jharkhand and Others; Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate; Counsel for the Respondent–State: Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA.
