IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.96 of 2011 Anil Rai son of Late Mathura Rai, resident of Mohalla Gosain Tola, Devi Asthan, Pollice Station- Patliputra, Dist- Patna…………………………………………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Home Commissioner, Govt of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 5. The Deputy Police, law & order Patna 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Law & order Patna. ……………………………………………Respondents ----------- 6 05.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has come here with a prayer for issuance of any direction to the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith as, according to the petitioner, he is being illegally detained by virtue of order no.7/CCA- 10129 / 2010 H(P)- 10538 dated 29.12.2010 (Annexure- 5) issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna(Respondent No.2) under the provisions of Section 12(2) of Bihar Control Crimes Act 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Law and 2 Order, Patna (Respondent No.5) has sent a letter bearing No.4772 dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure-1) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna (Respondent No.4) with a recommendation for initiation of proceeding under Section 12(2) of the Act. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, the Senior Superintendent of Police further sent a recommendation to the District Magistrate, Patna (Respondent No.3) for initiation of a proceeding against the petitioner vide his letter No.2714 dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure-2). The District Magistrate being satisfied with the aforesaid recommendation of the police officials invoked the provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Act against the petitioner vide his memo No. I-173/10, 3071/ M Vidhi dated 26.10.2010 (Annexure-3). The State Government vide letter dated 6.11.2010 (Annexure-4) issued under the signature of Under Secretary , Government of Bihar, Patna approved the detention order on 26.10.2010 passed by the District Magistrate Patna. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board, Which found that sufficient cause exists for detention of the petitioner and accordingly a letter dated 29.12.2010 was issued by respondent No. 3, 3 whereby the State Government confirmed the detention order No. 3071 dated 26.10.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna Under Section 12(2) of the Act in respect of the petitioner and directed that he will remain in detention till 26.10.2011. The cases which have been relied upon by the respondents for detention of the petitioner are Patliputra P.S. Case No.31 of 2003, Patliputra P.S.Case No. 79 of 2008, Patliputra P.S.Case No. 62 of 2010, Patliputra P.S.Case No.87 of 2010 and Sachivalaya P.S. Case No. 59 of 2004. The petitioner was arrested in the year 2010 on suspicion in connection with Patliputra P.S.Case No.62 of 2010 and thereafter he was remanded in Patliputra P.S. Case No. 87 of 2010. Both the cases were under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no incriminating article was recovered and when the respondents found that the petitioner may be released on bail , they invoked the provisions of the Act. The order has been assailed on numerous ground but primary ground is that the order suffers from non application of mind as the District Magistrate, Patna, has not mentioned in his order the period for which the petitioner has been detained. 4 Separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and the authorities have justified the detention order on the ground that the petitioner being involved in several cases of snatching, robbery and extortion was fit to be detained under the provisions of the Act because of his nefarious activities. Perused the order of detention from which it appears that the same has been passed on certain grounds. In one of the cases, on which the detaining authority has relied upon, the petitioner has been acquitted. Hence, it appears that order was without application of mind and also that entire circumstances were not placed before the detaining authority. Taking into consideration all these facts, this Court has no option but to interfere with the detention order. No one can imagine that civil right could be infringed without any substantive ground under Article 26 of the constitution of India. Preamble 3 of the Act provides for preventive detention. The word ‘preventive detention’ is distinct from the words punitive detention. Both the words are used in different context. The detention must be done by following the procedure of law but in many cases, orders of preventive detention can be passed 5 for various reasons but it appears that in the present case the detention order has been made only on the ground of lodging of some criminal cases. It was incumbent upon the authorities to consider only those cases which are in existence. If the authorities consider a case in which a person is already acquitted then in that circumstances it can be held that the order of preventive detention was passed without application of mind and in such situation this Court cannot sit ideal rather it will have to interfere in the matter. This is a fit case in which it can be said that there was no proper application of mind. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The detention order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna (Annexure-3) and its confirmation order dated 29.12.2010 are quashed. Namita ( Shayam Kishore Sharma, J.) ( Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)