Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.87 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Nitish Yadav S/O Umesh Yadav R/O Village - Mahdeba, Police Station Bariarpur, District - Munger Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Secretary, Home ( Police ) Department, Govt. Of Bihar 3. District Magistrate, Munger 4. Superintendent Of Police, Munger 5. Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Jamalpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) 7 9-04-2013 Through instant writ petitioner has challenged order of detention dated 09.07.2012 passed in terms of Section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981(in short „the Act‟ for all subsequent references), the order of approval dated 16.07.2012 in terms of Section 12 (3) of the Act as well as order dated 31.08.2012 through which the State Government has confirmed the order of preventive detention dated 09.07.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Munger in Case No. 4/2012 in terms of Section 21 (1), 22 of the Act. 2. As reported by the Superintendent of Police, Munger, the learned District Magistrate/Detaining Authority, 2 Munger had initiated a proceeding No/4 of 2012-2013 under the Act whereunder passed the detention order on 09.07.2012 on account of involvement of petitioner in connection with Bariarpur P.S. Case no. 3/11 dated 10.01.11, Bariarpur P.S. Case no. 23/11 dated 18.03.11, Bariarpur P.S. Case no. 67/11 dated 10.07.11, Bariarpur P.S. Case no. 70/11 dated 10.07.11 and further coming to subjective satisfaction
Facts
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
Legal Reasoning
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 in the case of Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, reported in 1990 SC 1196 considered the earlier pronouncement