JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent State. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster, Government of Jharkhand dated 16.01.2024 which is with regard to the detention of the petitioner in jail custody. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the FIR being Gidhour P.S. Case No. 39 of 2019 was registered under Sections 17(c) and 18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act on the basis of the confessional statement of the arrested accused namely Rahul Kushwaha and thereafter the petitioner was enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 03.12.2019. He further submits that after the regular bail, the petitioner was running poultry shop in his village. He then submits that it has been transpired from the news of Dainik Jagaran newspaper published on 17.04.2023 and the certificate given by the Mukhiya of Gidhour Panchayat certified by Mukhiya that the petitioner is running a poultry shop. He submits that the petitioner came to know about his detention after receiving the letters dated 30.01.2024 issued by the Deputy Collector In charge, District General Branch, Chatra to the Circle Officer, Gidhour contained in Annexure-4 & 4/1. He submits that the petitioner came to know that the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has passed a detention order against the petitioner on 16.01.2024 contained in Annexure-5 & 5/1. He submits that without satisfaction the said order has been passed and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that only on the basis of sanhas the said detention order has been passed which is not in accordance with law. He relied in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura and Others, (2022) SCC Online SC 1333. On this ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner is involved in drug trafficking. He relied in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura and Others, (2022) SCC Online SC 1333. On this ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner is involved in drug trafficking. He submits that the Superintendent of Police, Chatra by letter dated 05.12.2023 sent a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra annexing the relevant document for forwarding the same for detention of the petitioner invoking the provision of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra by letter dated 29.12.2023 submitted a proposal to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Jharkhand for detention to the petitioner under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 annexing the proposal of the Superintendent of Police, Chatra, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Simariya and the Officer In-charge of the Simariya Police Station contained in Annexure-A of the counter affidavit. He submits that the Superintendent of Police in his letter dated 05.12.2023 has stated the fact that the petitioner were in profession of trafficking of opium/brown sugar. From the act of him, common people specially young group is being impressed towards trafficking of opium/brown sugar and such intelligence is receiving that a large class of people is making up their mind towards smuggling of opium/brown sugar. In such a situation, desecration of decent social environment could not be denied. There are case and sanhas registered against the petitioner. He is presently on bail. Due to his dominance nobody is ready to be witness against him. As a result, difficulty arises in prosecution against him and his misdeed could not be proved. He has earned crores rupees in the illegal business and he remains indulged in the same business and also stimulates other to do the same business. The accused has contacts with inter districts as well as inter-state opium smugglers. The fact is also supported by case registered against him. Such intelligence is received that he is involved in smuggling of opium/brown sugar from Punjab and Haryana also. Common people are quiet concerned and scared at smuggling of opium/brown sugar by him. The accused has contacts with inter districts as well as inter-state opium smugglers. The fact is also supported by case registered against him. Such intelligence is received that he is involved in smuggling of opium/brown sugar from Punjab and Haryana also. Common people are quiet concerned and scared at smuggling of opium/brown sugar by him. He submits that 6 kilogram and 400 grams wet opium had been recovered from him and his accomplice. He neither regards law and legislation nor have fear of law. He further submits that the satisfaction is recorded of the concerned authority and thereafter the said order has been passed and in view of that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court finds that the allegation against the petitioner are there of indulged in drug trafficking even taking the drugs from the State of Punjab and Haryana. There are case registered against the petitioner which is disclosed in paragraph No. 2 of the impugned order of the Secretary concerned. Thus, there are voluminous documentary evidence placed on record in the counter affidavit which was taken care in the impugned order by the detaining authority for passing the order of detention and it cannot be said that there was non-application of mind in passing the impugned order of detention. The voluminous record available with the detaining authority showed that the petitioner was engaged in illicit traffic in the purchase, sale, possession and abetting the export of Narcotic Drugs in the city of Chatra which is an area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic. There was enough material for the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the petitioner was engaged in the clandestine business of preparing and selling opium/brown sugar. 6. Section 3(1) confers the power of detention. The purpose for which a detention order may be passed is confined to “preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” The term “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” is further defined under Section 2(a). 6. Section 3(1) confers the power of detention. The purpose for which a detention order may be passed is confined to “preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” The term “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” is further defined under Section 2(a). Therefore, the power to detain, under the Act of 1986 can be exercised only for preventing a person from engaging in, or pursuing or taking some action which adversely affects or is likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order; or for preventing him from making preparations for engaging in such activities. The conduct or activities of the detenu in the past must be taking into account from coming to the conclusion that he is going to engaged in or make preparations for engaging in such activities, for many such persons follow a pattern of criminal activities. 7. So far the judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik (supra) is concerned in that case the non-application of judicial mind was there and in view of that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the order, thus that judgment is not helping the petitioner. 8. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.