IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.507 of 2009 Manta Yadav @ Mantu Yadav, son of Ashok Choudhary, resident of village Ufrail (Maranga), P.S. K. Hat (Maranga), District Purnea. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Home Secretary (P), Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary to Government of Bihar. 4. The District Magistrate, Purnea. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Purnea. 6. The Superintendent of District Jail, Purnea. .... Respondents. ----------- 04- 24.08.2009 Heard Mr. Viveka Nand Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Ram Subhash Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.6. The petitioner challenge the order of preventive detention passed under the provisions of the Bihar Crime Control Act 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not intend to file rejoinder to the same. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner is accused in three criminal cases and was lodged in Purnea jail on account of denial of bail in each case. Respondent no.4 passed the impugned order of detention dated 5.12.2008, in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act. A copy of the same, and the grounds of detention, are 2 marked Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition. It is stated in the order of detention (Annexure-1) that the petitioner is a notorious dacoit and Rangdar of the area, engaged in criminal intimidation, and also in illegal import of fire- arms by surreptitious methods. He is a terror in the area and has been able to unleash a rein of terror. The petitioner is making efforts in accordance with law to obtain bail in the three cases. The details of criminal cases are mentioned in the grounds of detention. By order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure 3), the State Government approved the order of detention in terms of section 12(3) of the Act. The petitioner asserts that he has submitted his representation dated 21.12.2008 while still in jail custody and the same was not forwarded by the Jail Superintendent. At its meeting held on 15.1.2009, the Advisory Board approved the order of detention in terms of Section 19 of the Act. This was followed by the petitioner’s second representation dated 21.1.2009 (Annexure-4), and has been approved by the respondent authorities by order dated 28.6.2009 (Annexure-5). 3. The petitioner assails the validity of the impugned order on various grounds. He submits that once action in accordance with the penal laws of the land has been taken, the State Government should not have taken action under the Act. He next 3 submits that copies of some of the relevant documents were not supplied to him. For example, letter no.4733, dated 24.11.2008, of respondent no.5 to District Magistrate and mentioned in the grounds of detention. He next submits that the statement made in Annexure-1 that the petitioner is a notorious criminal of the area and people of that area are living in a state of terror is the Ipsi Dixit of the detaining authority, inter alia, for the reason that three criminal cases mentioned in the grounds of detention do not disclose any serious offence. He lastly submits that non- consideration of his first representation of 21.12.2008, and the ultimate delay in disposal of the second representation, are sufficient grounds to invalidate the order of detention. 4. The learned Government Counsel supported the impugned order of detention. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that this writ petition can be disposed of on a short ground and, therefore, we do not feel the necessity of examining the remaining contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The order of detention (Annexure-1) seems to create an impression that the petitioner is a notorious criminal of the area and is a serious threat to public order along with law and order situation of 4 the area if he is released on bail. We would, therefore, like to examine the contents of the three F.I.Rs., the details of which are mentioned in the grounds of detention (Annexure-2). In so far as K.Hat P.S. Case No.260 of 2008 dated 3.7.2008 is concerned, it has been lodged under section 387 of the IPC. The substance of the allegations is that he was ultimately charge- sheeted under sections 387, 120-B, 216, 212 and 34 of IPC, but he has ultimately been acquitted in the case. In so far as Sadar P.S. Case No.243 of 2008 dated 19.6.2008 is concerned, the same has been registered under sections 399, 402, 414 and 120-B of the IPC read with sections 25(1-b) A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The petitioner has been released on bail in this case. In so far as the third case, namely, K.Hat P.S. Case 329 of 2008 dated 1.9.2008 is concerned, charges were levelled against him under sections 353, 506, 414 and 387 of the IPC read with Section 42 of the Prisons Act. The petitioner has been released on bail in this case also. 6. In view of the nature of the allegations summarised in the order of detention, it does not appear to us to be cases of serious offences which can justify an order of detention. 7. In the result, we are of the view that there were insufficient grounds before the 5 detaining authority to pass an order of detention in a situation where the respondent authorities had taken adequate steps to take action against the petitioner under the Penal Code. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. (S K Katriar, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) S.K.Pathak/