THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
Ranchi, December 23: The Jharkhand High Court on Monday sought a response from the State government on the preventive detention of Bhairav Singh, who claims to be a Hindu/Sanatani rights activist, after he challenged an order declaring him an “anti-social element” and placing him under detention.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad directed the State to file its response after hearing initial arguments questioning the legality of the detention order passed by the Ranchi district administration earlier this month.
Earlier Restrictions, No Fresh Allegations
Appearing for Singh, senior counsel Ajit Kumar, assisted by Abhay Mishra, submitted that the detention order was passed without proper consideration of facts. It was pointed out that the district administration had earlier issued an order restricting Singh’s entry into Ranchi for the same set of allegations. After that restriction period ended and Singh returned to the city, no fresh incidents were reported, according to the petitioner.
The defence further argued that some cases cited against Singh were shown to have occurred when he was already in custody, raising questions about their relevance.
Bail Granted, No Action to Cancel It
Singh’s counsel told the court that he has been granted bail in all pending cases and has also been acquitted in one matter. Despite this, the State did not seek cancellation of bail and instead invoked preventive detention, which was described as excessive and unjustified.
Allegations Linked to Religious Activity
Challenging the basis of detention, the petitioner’s side submitted that the allegations relied upon by the authorities did not involve serious criminal activity. According to the arguments placed before the court, the accusations largely related to Singh raising religious slogans while participating in a procession of his own community.
Singh claims that his activities were part of peaceful religious expression and advocacy for Sanatani rights, and that there was no allegation of violence or anti-national conduct.
Representation Not Decided
It was also argued that a detailed representation was submitted to the authorities explaining these facts, but no decision or response was communicated, even as the detention order remained in force.
State Seeks Time
The State government, through its counsel, sought time to obtain instructions and place its response before the court. Accepting the request, the High Court listed the matter for further hearing in early January and directed the State to file its reply addressing the issues raised regarding preventive detention.
The court did not pass any interim order at this stage.
