✦ Patna High Court · 14 Jun 2010

SAIMPU SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.

AT PATNA CR. WJC No. 798 of 2010MRIDULA MISHRA, DHARNIDHAR JHA3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

This application is dismissed

Provisions considered

Judgment

Operative part

confirmed the order of detention under section 21(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. The representation filed by the petitioner was also rejected and communicated to him. Counsel for the petitioner has taken a solitary ground for challenging the order of detention, i.e., while the petitioner is still behind the bar and not granted bail in one of the cases instituted against him, as such there was no good ground for passing an order of detention under section 12 (2) of the Act. On perusal of the counter affidavits, filed on behalf of the respondents, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the procedure adopted by the respondents for passing an order of detention against 4 the petitioner and its confirmation by the State Government. Steps have been taken in accordance with law as provided under the Act. So far the grounds taken by the petitioner regarding his still being behind the bar in connection with one case, we do not find any merit in this ground as being an accused in this case, he must be making attempt for grant of bail in connection with this case. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate under section 12 (2) of the Act as well as confirmation by the State Government vide order dated 11.06.21010. This application is dismissed. (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: This application is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 — ss. 12(2), 21(2); Arms Act, 1959.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Patna High Court, on 14 Jun 2010. The bench was MRIDULA MISHRA, DHARNIDHAR JHA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Patna High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. AT PATNA CR. WJC No. 798 of 2010). ← Search more judgments