IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1221 of 2010 MANJEET SINGH @ RISHI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS . ----------- 3 14.12.2010 Petitioner Manjeet Singh alias Rishi has brought into question the order passed by the District Magistrate, Patna contained in Memo no. 1960 dated 6.7.2010 detaining him on couple of grounds as stated in that particular order. The order of detention appears approved by the Government of Bihar through its Under Secretary, as may appear from Annexure-1, i.e., the letter bearing no. 7/CCA-1948/2010-H(P)-6842 dated 19.8.2010. It further appears from the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5 that the petitioner was directed to be produced and probably he has been produced before the Advisory Board and we do not know what ultimately had happened, and we find further from annexures to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4 that on the opinion of the Advisory Board, the State Government approved the order, which was initially issued under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act ( Act for short). 2 While challenging the order of detention, the petitioner has canvassed before us three grounds;- firstly the couple of cases which were cited as grounds were stale inasmuch as the date of occurrence of one case was 8.2.2009, whereas the other case was reported on 22.1.2009 and the order of detention was passed after lapse of more than a year on 6.7.2010. It was also contended that in those two cases in which petitioner has been branded habitual offender, the petitioner was granted bail. It was contended further that the representation of the petitioner was rejected by Annexure-4 by the Government of Bihar, which was filed by him against his order of detention and that order of the Government does not appear containing any reason. The last ground pleaded was that the order passed by the District Magistrate, Patna was a composite order. Learned Government Pleader No.18 Shri Neeraj Nandan has attempted to convince us that the order was perfectly passed and is supportable, but when confronted with regard to the actions of the authorities concerned which were not as per the settled principles of 3 law or the provisions of the Act on curtailing the liberties of an individual, firstly, Sri Nandan wanted to seek further instructions in the matter, but later acceded to our views that the petition may be disposed of. Remoteness of the ground is one thing which has found favour with Courts in matters of preventive detention. The grounds which are taken in basing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be proximate, that’s to say, that it should have some close nexus in its cause and effect of threatening the public order. If an instance of a criminal activity detrimental to the public order is accepted as satisfactory for passing such an order, then it must show its proximity to the order of detention, else, it could not be upheld as a ground for passing an order of such far reaching effect. For holding a person habitual offender, it is required to show that he was continuously involved in commission of offences which will give rise to a situation so as to disturbing, the existing order in the society. A single act of committing an offence like that murder Sections 399,402 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, to us, appear an instance which may ordinarily be 4 said to be insufficient to brand the person as habitual offender and that too if it had taken place as back as on 8..2.2009. Likewise, there was a case against three unknown criminals reported under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code on 22.1.2009 in which the petitioner’s name was not initially appearing. In our view, it was not a fit instance to detain him. We wish to point out to the Officers of the Executive, empowered to pass an order as effective as to curtail the personal liberties of a citizen by virtue of Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, that they should be very cautious and careful to consider the grounds and they should act with all seriousness and then they should brand a person a habitual offender. If a person is held habitual offender the necessary corollary that follows is that his liberties have to be curtailed. If such are the grounds used by the District Magistrate, Patna in curtailing the liberties of a citizen which were so stale as having occurred more than a year back, we could be inclined to quash the detention order on this solitary ground itself as it shows that the order was passed in a mechanical manner with due appreciation of his mind by the detaining authority. 5 We find further that the representation of the petitioner was forwarded by the Superintendent Adrash Central Jail, Beur and that was duly received by the Government of Bihar in its Home (Police) Department. The representation was rejected, as may appear from Annexure-4, which is memo No. 7252 dated 1.9.2010. Requirement of law is that a representation of the detenue ought to have been considered ground wise and reasons ought to have been pointed out as to why the representation was not sustainable and acceptable. We simply regret in noting that the Government has not assigned any reason while rejecting the representation of the petitioner and has confirmed the order of detention mechanically. The order approving the detention of the petitioner on the advice of the Advisory Board was passed on 19.8.2010 and the representation was rejected on 1.9.2010. Thus, we find that the order approving detention order was preceding the order rejecting the representation. This is yet another ground, which cannot sustain the order of detention. We further find that the order of detention was 6 a composite order which was containing the grounds for passing the same. It has repeatedly been pointed out that the grounds for passing the detention order have to be separately stated by a different speaking order and the detention order has to be separately issued to be served upon the detenue. We further find that the District Magistrate issued an order under Section 12(2) of the Act detaining the petitioner for one year, i.e., up to 6.7.2011, which, in our view, was not within his domain of jurisdiction. It was within the powers of the State Government to have done it, and that too from time to time. On the reasons assigned above, we find sufficient merit in the present petition. The order dated 6.7.2010 contained in Memo no. 1960 as also the order dated 19.8.2010 contained in memo No. 7/CCA- 1948/2010 H (P)-6842 of Home (Police) Department are hereby quashed. Petitioner is directed to be released from custody forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case. A.Kumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha,J.)