IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.182 of 2010 Shambhu Choudhary @ Shambhu Yadav, Son of Sanjay Choudhary @ Sanjay Yadav, resident of Village-Barka Taudwan, P.S. Siwan, Muffasil, District-Siwan ----- ---- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary to the Govt. of Bihar, Department of Home (Police), Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Siwan. 5. The Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Siwan ----- Respondents. -------- 4. 12.4.2010 Heard Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey for the petitioner, and Mr. Piyush Lal, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2009(Annexure- 1), passed by respondent no.4 in terms of Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the petitioner has been preventively detained for a period of one year. It is further directed against the order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure-2), passed by the State Government in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act, whereby the order of detention (Annexure-1) has been approved. While assailing the validity of the 2 impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed without show-cause notice to the petitioner. He also submits that the impugned order is based on three substantive criminal cases pending against the petitioner which are identical in nature. In his submission, he has already been acquitted in one of them before the impugned order was passed. He has been acquitted in the second case after the order of detention was passed, and is on bail in the third case. Learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned order. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. There is no provision in the Act that show-cause notice has to be served before the order of detention is passed. The Act does mandate that a copy of the order of detention has to be served on the petitioner against which he has right to represent. This part of the requirement of law has been followed. The contention is rejected. As to the second contention, the judgment of the learned trial courts are 3 marked Annexure 3 and 4 to the writ petition. On a perusal of both the judgments, it appears that the prosecution witnesses, who had supported the culpability of the petitioner in those cases during course of investigation, turned hostile during the course of the trial. It appears to us that the petitioner is really a terror in his area and the prosecution witnesses refused to support the prosecution case. This conclusion is fully supported by the preamble of the impugned order of detention dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure-1), and is reproduced hereinbelow: ^^“kaHkw pkS/kjh mQZ “kaHkw ;kno] is0 lat; pkS/kjh mQZ lat; ;kno] lk0 & cM+dk VM+okWa] Fkkuk & floku eqQfly] ftyk floku ,d dq[;kr vijk/kdehZ gS ftlds vkijkf/kd d`R;ksa ls vke turk esa Hk; O;kIr jgrk gS A blds }kjk MdSrh] ywV ,oa vkXus;kL=ksa dk izn”kZu vkfn laxhu dk.Mksa dks dkfjr dj yksd “kkafr dks fujarj Hkax fd;k tkrk jgk gS ftlds dkj.k lkekU; yksd O;oLFkk ij izfrdwy izHkko iM+rk gS A ** In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)