Nitish Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

in the aforesaid background that petitioner‟s remaining outside jail will adversely affect the public order which subsequently, found to be approved at the end of the State Government vide order dated 16.07.2012. Meanwhile, petitioner filed representation on 17.08.2012 which was addressed to District Magistrate, Munger where-from it was transmitted to the State Government. In the meantime, the matter was placed before Advisory Board on 25.07.2012 which held its meeting on

23.08.2012 concluding that there happens to be sufficient ground for detention and in the aforesaid background confirmation at the end of State Government was passed on 31.08.2012 simultaneously, rejection of representation filed on behalf of the petitioner was also communicated on 31.08.2012.

#3. Heard both sides.

#4. After hearing both sides as well as going through the order dated 09.07.2012 passed by learned District 3 Magistrate/Detaining Authority, Munger it is evident that the orders were served upon the petitioner through Superintendent, Jail, Munger but the learned Detaining Authority failed to acknowledge whether petitioner is under custody and he was trying to get himself enlarged on bail. So far applicability of preventive detention is concerned, there is no dispute on account of being settled at rest that the same is enforceable even against the person being under custody. The aforesaid issue while being considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court the case of Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, reported in 1990 SC 1196 considered the earlier pronouncement