In Vikash Tiwari @ Vikash Nath Tiwari vs. The State of Jharkhand W.P. (Cr.) No. 633 of 2026, Jharkhand High Court's Division Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Akhil Kumar fixed the next date of hearing for November 20, 2026 upon hearing the case on November 5, 2026.. The State has filed its "counter affidavit" on November 3, 2026. The reply of the counter affidavit has not been filed as yet. The writ petition was filed in the High Court on October 8, 2026 and registered on October 14, 2026. The five other respondents are:2) The Department of Home Through Its Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, 3) The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ramgarh, 4) The Additional Chief Secretary,Home Prison and Disaster Management, 5) The Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh, and 6) The Jail Superintendent, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh. Notably, most of the orders issued by SP, Ramgarh and DM, Ramgarh with reference to Tiwari refer to Nishi Pandey, currently the vice president of Bharatiya Jantantra Morcha, a political party, without attributing any specific offence against her. She is the widow of Raj Kishor Pandey who was killed in Jamshedpur 2014.
Meanwhile, pursuant to the recommendation letter of S.P., Ramgarh dated October 31, 2026 and the order dated September 16, 2026 by Under Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Jharkhand, the DC-cum-DM has issued an order dated November 3, 2026, wherein, it has extended its detention order dated August 19, 2026 which was to expire on November 18, 2026. The detention order has been extended for three months. The extension order lists 53 cases filed against Tiwari between November 22, 2008-October 29, 2026. The fact is that Tiwari who is in jail for the last 11 years has challenged the order dated August 19, 2026, the order under challenge issued by the Deputy Commissioner (DC)-cum-District Magistrate (DM), Ramgarh supposedly in exercise of power under Section 12 (1) and (2) of Jharkhand Control of Crime Act, 2002. But a bare perusal of the impugned order shows that it is not an independent self-contained order. The detention extension order reads: उपायुक्त सह जिला दण्डाधिकारी का कार्यालय, रामगढ़। (विधि शाखा)-निरूद्धादेश की स्वीकृति :-ज्ञापांक 2639/विधि रामगढ़, दिनांक- 03/11 / 2028 पुलिस अधीक्षक, रामगढ़ का ज्ञापांक-662/ बी०सी०बी०, दिनांक-31.10.20028 से प्राप्त कुख्यात अपराधकर्मी पाण्डेय गिरोह के मुख्य संचालक एवं अभ्यस्त (Habitual), अपराधी विकास तिवारी, पे०-शम्भुनाथ तिवारी, सा०-पतरातू बस्ती, थाना- पतरातू जिला-रामगढ़ के विरुद्ध झारखण्ड अपराध नियंत्रण अधिनियम-2002 के अध्याय-2 की धारा-12(1)(2) के तहत् निरूद्धादेश अवधि विस्तार हेतु प्रस्ताव अनुशंसा सहित प्रस्ताव प्राप्त है।
पुलिस अधीक्षक, रामगढ़ से प्राप्त प्रस्ताव के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि कुख्यात अपराधकर्मी पाण्डेय गिरोह के मुख्य संचालक एवं एक अभ्यस्त (Habitual), अपराधी विकास तिवारी, पे०-शम्भुनाथ तिवारी, सा०-पतरातू बस्ती, थाना-पतरातू, जिला-रामगढ़ वर्तमान में केन्द्रीय कारा, हजारीबाग में संसीमित है। इसके विरूद्ध रामगढ़ जिला के विभिन्न थाना / ओ०पी० क्षेत्र तथा राज्य के अन्य क्षेत्रों में भी कई काण्ड दर्ज है, जिसमें मुख्य रूप से रामगढ़ जिला के पतरातू भुरकुण्डा, बासल, बरकाकाना, माण्डू, रामगढ़ एवं अन्य थाना क्षेत्र तथा इसके अलावे झारखण्ड राज्य के हजारीबाग, धनबाद, पलामु लातेहार, चतरा एवं राँची जिला में भी कई काण्ड दर्ज है। साथ ही बिहार राज्य के सारण जिला के छपरा एवं अन्य जिला में भी सक्रिय है तथा काण्ड दर्ज है। इन क्षेत्रों में पाण्डेय गिरोह का काफी आतंक है। इनके गैंग के विरूद्ध प्रतिवेदित काण्डों में मुख्य रूप से लेवी के रूप में पैसा नहीं देने पर पेशेवर तरीके से पोस्टर चिपकाना, आर्थिक क्षति पहुँचाना, शस्त्र अधिनियम, विस्फोटक पदार्थ अधिनियम, हत्या एवं जानलेवा हमला करने जैसे जघन्य अपराधिक घटना को अंजाम देकर आमजनों, ठिकेदारों, ट्रांसपोर्टरों एवं अद्योगिक/व्यवसायी वर्ग में दहशत फैलाना मुख्य कार्य है. पाण्डेय गिरोह के सक्रीय सदस्य है। गैंग में इनके अलावे काफी संख्या में अपराधकर्मी शामिल है। ये काफी शातिर किस्म का अपराधकर्मी है। यह वर्त्तमान में अपने गुर्गों के माध्यम से भी आमजनों, ठिकदारों व व्यापारिक संगठनों को धमकाने की बात प्रकाश में आयी है। इनके अपराधिक से रामगढ़ जिला क्षेत्र में लोक शांति/लोक प्रशांति काफी प्रभावित हो रही है। ऐसी कुकृत्य स्थिति में इसे काराधीन रहने की अति आवश्यकता है, दिनांक-18.11.2026 को निरुद्धादेश अवधि समाप्त होने के उपरांत कारा से इनके मुक्त होते ही यह पुनः अपराधिक गतिविधियों में संलिप्त होकर लोक शांति एवं विधि व्यवस्था के लिए गम्भीर समस्या बन जायेगा।
पुलिस अधीक्षक, रामगढ़ द्वारा उक्त परिपेक्ष में कुख्यात अपराधकर्मी पाण्डेय गिरोह के मुख्य संचालक एवं अभ्यस्त (Habitual), अपराधी विकास तिवारी को निरुद्ध करने हेतु अनुरोध किया गया है। गृह कारा एवं आपदा प्रबंधन विभाग झारखण्ड राँची का आदेश ज्ञापांक- 05/ सी०सी०९०/01/42/2020-331/CCA दिनांक- 16.09.2020 द्वारा संसूचित है कि झारखण्ड अपराध नियंत्रण अधिनियम 2002 के अध्याय-2 की धारा-12(1)(2) के तहत कुख्यात अपराधकर्मी पाण्डेय गिरोह के मुख्य संचालक एवं अभ्यस्त (Habitual), अपराधी विकास तिवारी, पे०-शम्भुनाथ तिवारी, सा०-पतरातू बस्ती, थाना-पतरातू जिला-रामगढ़ को निरुद्ध करने के लिए यथेष्ट आधार विद्यमान है। तदनुसार झारखण्ड अपराध नियंत्रण अधिनियम 2002 के अध्याय-2 की धारा-12(1)(2) के तहत उक्त अपराधकर्मी को निरुद्धादेश पारित करने की तिथि से आगामी तीन माह (दिनांक-19082026 से दिनांक-18.11.2026) तक निरुद्ध किये जाने का संपुष्टि आदेश संसूचित है। पुलिस अधीक्षक, रामगढ़ से पुन: अनुशंसा सहित प्राप्त प्रस्ताव का समीक्षोपरांत में संतुष्ट हूँ कि कुख्यात अपराधकर्मी विकास तिवारी, पे०-शम्भुनाथ तिवारी, सा०-पतरातू बस्ती, थाना-पतरातू, जिला-रामगढ़ के जेल से बाहर रहने पर सामान्य जन-जीवन अस्त-व्यस्त होगा। विधि व्यवस्था एवं लोक प्रशान्ति पर प्रतिकुल रूप से प्रभावी होगी एवं इनके आतंक से लोगों के बीच भय एवं आतंक का माहौल हो जायेगा।
सरकार के अवर सचिव, गृह, कारा एवं आपदा प्रबंधन विभाग झारखण्ड राँची का आदेश ज्ञापांक-05/सी०सी०ए०/01/42/अतः काराधीक्षक नियमानुसार निरूद्धित अपराधी को अभ्यावेदन के माध्यम से राज्य सरकार के समक्ष उनके पक्ष प्रस्तुत करवाना सुनिश्चत करेंगे। यदि निर्धारित अवधि के उपरांत सरकार स्तर से सम्पुष्टि अप्राप्त रहती है तो निरुद्धादेश स्वतः समाप्त समझा जायेगा।
ज्ञापांक : 2639/ विधि, ह० /- उपायुक्त -सह- जिला दण्डाधिकारी, रामगढ़। दिनांक : 3/11 3/11/2026
The operative part of the order contained in the last paragraph of the order reads:”कुख्यात अपराधकर्मी पाण्डेय गिरोह के मुख्य संचालक एवं एक अभ्यस्त (Habitual), अपराधी विकास तिवारी, पे०-शम्भुनाथ तिवारी, वर्त्तमान में केन्द्रीय कारा, हजारीबाग में संसीमित है, पतरातु अनुमंडल अंतर्गत वर्तमान में पाण्डेय गिरोह की संचालिका निशी पाण्डेय पति - स्व० किशोर पाण्डेय, सा०- पतरातु, बस्ती, थाना- पतरातु, जिला-रामगढ़ जो अपने पति किशोर पाण्डेय की मृत्यु के पश्चात् विकास तिवारी के साथ मिलकर गिरोह का संचालन करने का काम कर रहें हैं। पाण्डेय गिरोह का कार्य क्षेत्र रामगढ़ जिले के विभिन्न थाना क्षेत्र तथा राज्य के अन्य क्षेत्रों में भी हैं, जिसमें मुख्य रूप से पतरातु, भुरकुण्डा, बासल, बरकाकाना, माण्डू, रामगढ हैं। इसके अलावे सीमावर्ती जिला हजारीबाग, धनबाद, पलामु, लातेहार, चतरा, राँची के साथ-साथ अन्य कई जिले में भी सक्रिय है। इन क्षेत्रों में इसका काफी आतंक है। पाण्डेय गिरोह के मुख्य संचालक एवं एक अभ्यस्त (Habitual) अपराधी है।अतः झारखण्ड अपराध नियंत्रण अधिनियम-2002 के अध्याय-2 की धारा 12 (1) (2) के तहत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कुख्यात अपराधकर्मी पांडेय गिरोह के मुख्य संचालक एवं अभ्यस्त (हबिटुअल) अपराधी विकास तिवारी- पेo-शंभुनाथ तिवारी, साo-पतरातू बस्ती, थाना-पतरातू,जिला-रामगढ़ के विरुद्ध आदेश निर्गत करने की तिथि से तीन माह के लिए निरुद्ध करने की स्वीकृति प्रदान की जाती हैं.”
Section 12 of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 deals with power to make order detaining certain persons. It reads: 12-power to make order detaining certain persons (1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements can not be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained. (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may by an order in writing direct, that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) exercise the powers conferred upon by the said sub-section:Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time. (3) When any order is made by District Magistrate, he shall forthwith report, the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after the making thereof unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government: Provided that where under Section 17 the grounds of detention are communicated by the officer making the order after five days but not later than ten days from the date of detention, this sub-section shall apply subject to the modification that, for the words "twelve days", the words "fifteen days" shall be substituted."
Section 12A of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 deals with the grounds of detention severable. It reads: 12A-Grounds of detention severable [(1) Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention whether made before or after the commencement of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 under section 12 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly (a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the ground (s) is or are. (i) vague; (ii) non-existent; (iii) non-relevant; (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person; or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever. and it is not therefore possible to hold that the Government or officer making such order would have been satisfied as provided in section 12 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention. (b) The Government or officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said section after being satisfied as provided in the section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds]."
The legislature does not empower the DC-cum-DM to exercise power in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. The exercise of power of DC-cum-DM is limited by three pre-conditions. He is required to record his satisfaction with respect to the person that “with a view to preventing him from acting in nay manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of the anti-social elements can not be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person.” He is required to demonstrate threat to “public order”. DM has to show and illustrate that there is no alternative but to detain him. For DM there is “an implicit duty is required to apply his mind to the pertinent and proximate matters and eschew those which are irrelevant and remote”. There is no finding of close proximity in between the offence committed and order of detention.
It may be recalled that 38-year old Raj Kishore Pandey of Patratu in Ramgarh, and his friend 37-year old Bablu Singh were killed by bike-borne assailants on October 16, 2014. 32-year old Suman Singh, bodyguard of Pandey who was with them sustained a bullet wound on his right leg. Pandey used to reside in Vijaya Heritage apartments in Kadma, Jamshedpur with Nishi Pandey, his wife and two children Bobby and Piyu. It was reported that Pandey’s murder was linked to his rivalry with one Sushil Srivastava, who operated from Patratu and Ramgarh. Sunil Srivastava was killed in June 2015. Kameshwar Pandey, father of notorious gangster Kishore Pandey, too was killed in Patratu by two shooters from South 24 Parganas district, West Bengal in October 2015 reportedly by Gautam Mandal (30), who was arrested, Sabir Khan (35) who was beaten to death after he was caught at the site and a person who came from West Bengal to kill Pandey with the help of Sabir Khan. Notably, Bharat Pandey and Deepak Saw who were booked in several criminal cases in Ramgarh were shot dead in January 2025 in Garda village under Chainpur police station area of Palamu. Justice Ambuj Nath of the Jharkhand High Court granted bail to Nishi Pandey, an accused in the double murder case in August 2025.
Prior to the current case of Vikas Tiwari, in Nishi Pandey @ Nishee Pandey vs. The State of Jharkhand, Jharkhand High Court;s Division Bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Anubha Rawat Choudhary passed an order dated September 8, 2023, wherein, it concluded;"16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the grounds on which the order dated 21st July 2023 has been passed, we are of the opinion that the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements in law. A power under clause (b) to sub-section (1) of section 3 which provides that the Deputy Commissioner may make an order against an "anti-social" element cannot be stretched to absurdity. Notwithstanding the powers conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner under clause (b) (i)&(ii) of sub-section (1) to section 3 of the Crimes Control Act, a condition requiring the petitioner to report to the police station and mark her attendance every day before the officer-in-charge of Patratu PS at 10:00 AM is arbitrary and illegal. Every executive decision even where it is made in the exercise of statutory power must be in consonance with the Constitutional guarantee. The direction under the order dated 21st July 2023 is definitely impinging upon the rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the order dated 21st July 2023 cannot be countenance in law and is, accordingly, quashed."
Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna, Amicus Curiae of the Patna High Court in the special courts/special laws case observed:"Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 has been enacted to make special provisions for the control and suppression of anti-social elements with a view to maintenance of public order. Earlier, in Upendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3615, while adjudicating a writ petition challenging successive preventive detention orders passed under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, the Division Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, held that once the Advisory Board had opined sufficient cause for detention and the State Government had passed a confirmatory order, no further approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending detention up to the maximum period of twelve months. The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad. The Court relied on Supreme Court's decision in Pesala Nookaraju vs. State of A.P., (2023) 14 SCC 641 to conclude no approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention. Justice Prasad observed that the petitioner’s contention regarding illegal extension on the same facts and absence of Advisory Board approval was unsustainable in law and accordingly dismissed the petition. On the issue of Advisory Board approval, he observed that once the Advisory Board had opined sufficient cause for detention and the State Government had passed a confirmatory order, no further review was required for subsequent extensions.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pesala Nookaraju's case to hold that detention could be continued up to the maximum period of twelve months without repeated Advisory Board approvals. Justice Prasad concluded that the impugned orders of extension of detention need not require interference, and the petition was dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment