IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.479 of 2009 Zubair Alam, son of Gulam Husnain, resident of Village-Fariyani, P.S. K. Nagar (Sri Nagar) in the district of Purnea ---------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Purnea. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Purnea. 5. The Superintendent of District Home, Purnea. ------ Respondents. -------- 6. 6.10.2009 Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Satish Narain Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.3. It arises out of order of preventive detention in terms of Section 12(2) of the Bihar Crime Control Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act’). Respondent no.3 passed the order of detention dated 2.12.2008 (Annexure-1), wherein the following statement is made: eSa larq"V gwWa fd tqcSj vkye, is0 xqyke gluSu, lk0 Qfj;kuh, Fkkuak& ds0 uxj (Jh uxj), ftyk& iwf.kZ;k ,d vknru vijk/kh gS@ bldk eq[; is’kk ywV, cSad MdSrh, jaxnkjh, vlekftd rRo, /kedh vkfn t?kU; ?kVukvksa dks vatke nsuk gS@ bldh vijkf/k xfrfof/k ls vke ukxfjdksa es Hk; ,oa vkrad dk ekgkSy cuk gqvk gS@ QyLo#i yksx O;oLFkk, 'kkfUr ,oa yksd ifj’kkfUr cuk;s j[kus ds fy, bls fu#+n~/k fd;k tkuk vko’;d gS@ orZeku esa ;g eaMy dkjk iwf.kZ;k esa lalhfer gS vkSj tekur ds fy, iz;Ru dj jgk gS@ blfy, yksd O;oLFkk ij fdlh dkjZokbZ ls izfrdwy izHkko ugh Mky lds bls /;ku esa j[krs gq, ;g vko’;d gks x;k gS fd bls fu#+n~/k djus ds fy, vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tk;@” The grounds of detention and the details of criminal cases are stated in the grounds of detention accompanying the order of 2 detention. Copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner, who was in custody in respect of substantive cases pending against him. The grounds of detention mention two criminal substantive cases pending against the petitioner, and also refers to five more criminal cases by way of background to show the reign of terror created by the petitioner. On receipt of a copy of the same, the petitioner submitted his representation which was considered by the appropriate authorities and the order of detention has been affirmed in terms of section 21(1) of the Act. The order of detention has been confirmed by Advisory Board also. 2. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the papers with respect to two criminal cases mentioned in the order of detention have not been supplied to him. He has submitted that he has already been released on bail in Araria P.S. Case No.185 of 2007, under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been acquitted in K. Hat P.S. Case No.410 of 2007, under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. He has relied on the following reported judgments: (i) A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 300, Yumnam Mangibabu Singh V. State of Manipur and Others. (ii) 2009(1) P.L.J.R. 50 SC State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. V. Abdullah Kadher Batcha & Anr. 3. Learned Government Counsel has relied on the counter affidavit sworn by respondent no.3, the detaining authority, and has supported the impugned action. 4. We have perused the materials on record and 3 considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. As to the first ground of attack, it appears to us that the grounds of detention state all the relevant details about two substantive criminal cases pending against the petitioner. In our view, it is sufficient to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. Furthermore, the petitioner is, on his own showing, accused in the two criminal cases and is effectively represented at all stages through his counsel. He is, therefore, in possession of all the relevant documents of the two criminal cases. Therefore, there is no question of prejudice to the petitioner. We are supported in our stand by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case State of Tamil Nadu (supra). We, therefore, conclude that, on account of the alleged non-supply of documents relating to the two trials pending against the petitioner, has in no way prejudice to the petitioner in making an effective representation. The contention is rejected. 5. As to the second contention, it appears that seven criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, and, according to him, he has been acquitted in four cases, and is on bail in three cases. We are of the view that the judgment(s) of acquittal do(es) not clearly make out a ground for quashing the order of preventive detention, inter alia, for the reason that the standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond all reasonable doubts. On the other hand, the primary basis to pass an order of detention is subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, on the basis of objection circumstances, and to the extent the detenu is a threat to the civil society. On a perusal of the materials on record including the statements made in the order of detention set out 4 hereinabove, the petitioner appears to be a notorious criminal, and seems to have unleashed a reign of terror in the district of Purnea. In such a situation, we would agree with the order of the detaining authority. The order of detention has been upheld and is hereby upheld. We are not inclined to set aside the order of detention. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal,J.)