IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1213 of 2010 SANJAY SHARMA son of late Suresh Singh, resident of village Dehuni P.S.Ghoshi, District Jehanabad … … Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through Home Secretary, Bihar, Partna, having his office at Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Jehanaad at Collectorate, Jehanabad 3. The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad 4. The Addl.S.P., Jehanabad … … Respondents For the petitioner: Shri Shekhar Kumar,Adv. For the State: Shri Md.Riasul Haque,G.P.5 ----------- 2. 26.11.2010 This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 14.6.2o1o contained in memo no. 4869 issued under the signatures of the Deputy Secretary of the Home( Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar confirming the order of detention dated 10.5.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act. The order of detention passed by the District Magistrate under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, as well as the order of confirmation passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home( Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar under Section 21(1) of the Act, has been challenged on several grounds. The first ground is that the detention order under Section 12(2) of the Act has been passed by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad, without specifying any time, which is mandatory for the detention order being passed under Section 12(2) of the Act and as such the same is bad. This was a blanket 2 order and any subsequent order confirming this illegal order is also illegal and as such, both the orders are fit to be quashed. It has also been stated in this criminal writ application by the petitioner that three cases have been taken as a ground for detention of the petitioner, out of which two relates to Arms Act and another one, i.e., Ghoshi P.SCase No. 180 of 2009 relates to the offences under Sections 307,326 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. There is no continuity in institution of the cases so as to indicate that in quick succession, the petitioner is indulging in so many cases, due to which he could have been categorized as a habitual offender. The nature of the cases was also not such which could have been considered to be a case affecting the public order. In fact, there was no good ground for passing the detention order against the petitioner and was no application of mind to the facts by the District Magistrate. The order of detention passed under Section 12(2) of the Act as well as its confirmation by the State Government without properly looking into the matter as to whether was an order passed in accordance with law, has made both the orders illegal and arbitrary. The third point submitted by the petitioner’s counsel is that the detention order indicates that the petitioner, who was in custody in connection with some case was attempting to come out of custody by filing an application for bail. Since he had not filed any application for grant of bail, there was no substance for passing any detention order. 3 Besides this, we also find that the representation filed by the petitioner challenging the detention order was kept pending till the date of confirmation of the detention order. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on the same date on which the order of detention was confirmed under Section 21(1) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act which in itself is an illegality and sufficient for quashing the order confirming the detention order. We find substance in the submission of counsel for the petitioner. For the above reasons, we find merit in this application. As such, the detention order dated 10.5.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad, under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act as well as the order of confirmation passed by the State Government under Section 21(1) of the Act, Annexures- 1 ands 1/1 are quashed. In the result, this application is allowed. Kanth ( Mridula Mishra, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)