IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1215 of 2010 BINOD BHINDWAR, Son of Sri Deo Narain Bhindwar, resident of village – Hirday Nagar (Bhawanipur), P.S. – Birpur, District – Supaul. ................ Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Supaul. 5. Superintendent of Police, Supaul. 6. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Birpur, District – Supaul. 7. Officer In-Charge of Birpur Police Station, District – Supaul. .................. Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate. Krishna Chandra, Advocate. For the Respondents :- M/S Kaushal Kumar Jha, S.C. XVIII. Baidya Nath Thakur A.C. to S.C. XVIII. 07/ 10.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and also perused the impugned order of detention dated 13.05.2010 contained in Annexure- 1. Through this writ petition petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus so as to secure release of the petitioner from the preventive detention under the impugned order passed by District Magistrate, Supaul under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a 2 strong grievance against the impugned order of detention on the ground that admittedly petitioner is in jail custody in connection with substantive cases, some of which, are mentioned in the order of detention but still he has been subjected to preventive detention without mentioning any facts and without recording the opinion that there is chance of coming out from jail custody in near future so as to endanger public order. It appears from Annexure-4 that earlier also a criminal writ petition bearing Cr.W.J.C No. 945 of 2008 preferred by the petitioner was allowed on similar technicality and liberty was granted to the District Magistrate, Supaul that he could pass fresh order under the Act in accordance with law. This time the order is not upon the old materials but upon subsequent criminal cases, as is clear from the grounds of detention. However, in view of major grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner noticed above, we are not inclined to examine other submissions because a perusal of the impugned order of detention shows that the District Magistrate has not mentioned the facts which have subsequently come through affidavit that petitioner has been granted bail in three of the five cases mentioned as 3 grounds and in the fourth case, case diary has been called for to examine his plea for bail and there is no bail application filed as yet in respect of other case mentioned as ground no. 5. The District Magistrate should have applied his mind to such facts and mentioned these facts in the impugned order with his subjective satisfaction that there is imminent likelihood of petitioner coming out of jail and disturbing public order. Since there is no material or finding that the petitioner is likely to come out of jail, the detention order, in our view suffers from non-application of mind to the relevant facts. Hence, the impugned order of detention contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. Since, admittedly, petitioner is in jail custody in connection with other criminal cases, we are not required to pass order for immediate release from jail custody. It goes without saying that the concerned authorities will be always at liberty to pass fresh order under the Act in accordance with law. Kundan (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)