Mere Involvement in Two Cases Doesn’t Make One a Habitual Offender: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Externment Order

High Court Emphasizes Need for Clear Evidence and Detailed Grounds for Externment Orders - In a pivotal judgment, the Jharkhand High Court quashed the externment order against Nishant Singh @ Kumar Nishant, ruling that his involvement in only two criminal cases does not constitute habitual offending under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. The bench, comprising Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Deepak Roshan, stressed the importance of concrete evidence and adherence to procedural safeguards in such matters.

Nishant Singh @ Kumar Nishant faced an externment order issued by the District Magistrate, Ramgarh, under Section 3(3) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. The order, dated April 19, 2024, directed his externment for three months or until the end of the Model Code of Conduct, whichever was earlier. The basis for this order was his alleged involvement in two criminal cases: Patratu P.S. Case No. 76/2022, involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Panchayati Raj Act, and Patratu P.S. Case No. 70/2022, involving charges under the IPC and the Arms Act. Singh contested the order, arguing that involvement in two cases does not make him a habitual offender.

Credibility of Grounds for Externment: The court scrutinized the foundation of the externment order, emphasizing that the term “habitual offender” necessitates a pattern of continuous criminal behavior, not isolated incidents. “The mere involvement in two criminal cases does not justify labeling the petitioner as a habitual offender,” stated the bench. The court reiterated that the definition of an anti-social element under Section 2(d)(i) of the Act requires evidence of habitual offending.

Importance of Procedural Safeguards: The judgment underscored the need for detailed reasoning and concrete evidence in externment orders. “Externment orders must be founded on concrete evidence and detailed reasoning,” the court highlighted. The bench criticized the District Magistrate’s order for lacking the necessary detailed reasoning, thus failing to meet the legal standards required for such punitive measures.

The court discussed the principles governing the issuance of externment orders, highlighting the need for a demonstrable pattern of habitual offending as required by Section 3 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. “The term ‘habitual’ implies repeated, persistent, and similar acts, not isolated incidents,” the court observed, referencing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Vijay Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar.

Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay remarked, “The element of ‘habitual’ offending is a critical component that must be evidenced through repeated and similar acts. Two criminal cases, devoid of any additional evidence of a pattern, do not fulfill this requirement.”

The Jharkhand High Court’s decision to quash the externment order against Nishant Singh @ Kumar Nishant underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding procedural fairness and protecting personal liberty. The judgment clarifies that authorities must present clear evidence of habitual criminal behavior before issuing such orders, thereby reinforcing the legal standards required for restricting an individual’s freedom.

Date of Decision: 16^th May 2024

Nishant Singh @ Kumar Nishant vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others