IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.654 of 2009 Bhim Kumar @ Shiv Kumar @ Santosh Kumar, son of Ram Narayan Singh @ Ramayan Singh, resident of village- Masaurih West Morh (Sone Kukrha Morh), P.S. Masaurhi, District- Patna. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna having his office in Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Patna having his at Collectorate, Patna. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.) Patna having his office at Police Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer (S.D.P.O.) Sadar, Patna having his office at Police Bhawan, Patna. .... Respondents. ----------- 04- 8.10.2009 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. Lakmesh Marvind, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.20. It arises out of an order of preventive detention in terms of Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟). 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Patna, submitted his report dated 23.3.2009 (Annexure-2), before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, stating therein the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the necessity to preventively detain him. This was followed by the order dated 12.5.2009 2 (Annexure-3), passed by the District Magistrate, Patna, being the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has unleashed a rein of terror in Kankarbagh, Fulwarisharif, Patrakar Nagar, Agamkuan, Budha Colony areas of Patna. The same further states that the petitioner is accused in Kankarbagh P.S. Case No.365 of 2008, dated 25.9.2008, under sections 302/34 of the IPC, read with Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as well as Kankarbagh P.S. Case No.317 of 2008, dated 23.8.2008, under section 392 of the IPC. It also states that the petitioner is making efforts in accordance with law to obtain bail in the aforesaid two criminal cases. The order of preventive detention was served on the petitioner on 12.5.2009 in jail on the same day. The Jail Superintendent forwarded his representation dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure-4) to the State Government, which was received on 21.5.2009. On a consideration of the representation (Annexure-4), the State Government approved the order of detention on 10.06.2009 (Annexure-8). The same has been approved by the Advisory Board also. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the 3 petitioner submits that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the petitioner‟s representation. He relies on the following reported orders: (i) 2007 (1) P.L.J.R. 717 (Vijay Kumar Pandey @ Vijay Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and others); (ii) 2007 (3) P.L.J.R. 270 (Santosh Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and others); and (iii) 2007 (Suppl.)P.L.J.R. 298 (Vikram Singh @ Vicky Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others). 3.1) Counsel further submits that the petitioner is engaged in studies and has already qualified for admission to the Engineering course in Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur. 4. The learned Government Counsel has placed the counter affidavit and has supported the impugned action. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. In our view, the most important aspect of the matter is that the petitioner claims to have obtained admission to the Engineering Course of Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur, an Engineering College of the Bihar Government. He has placed 4 on record marked Annexure-4 series, which are photo copies of the documents showing that he has appeared at the examination and has been selected for the course. The normal reaction to such a situation would be that a person engaged in such studies would normally not have the time nor the inclination to engage himself in such criminal activities as has been alleged in the present case. Not the slightest attempt has been made by the respondent authorities to examine this aspect of the matter and to meet it in the counter affidavit. Had the respondent authorities shown to our satisfaction that the plea of education set up by the petitioner is false, then the situation would have stood on a different footing. Paragraphs 31 and 32 of the writ petition are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference, and the same have remained completely unanswered in the counter affidavit: “31. That the petitioner who is student having bright carrier continued his study by remaining inside the jail and appeared in so many competitive examination as a result of which he was selected in B.C.E.C.E. 2008 and was allotted MIT, Muzaffarpur and during the period of counseling he is being pressurized by the police officials as a result of which he himself surrendered before the court of law and since then he is in jail.” 5 “32. That in view of the submission urged hereinbefore it is manifest that the detention order passed against the petitioner is illegal, improper and has been passed in malafied only with a view to oblige the agnate of the petitioner who are influential political person.” We deeply regret for the superficial approach on the part of the respondent authorities in dealing with such a vital matter which concerns the personal liberty of a citizen, and that too a young person who claims to be on the threshold of an engineering career. 7. It is in this background the petitioner‟s first contention assumes importance. Copy of the detention order was served on the petitioner on 12.05.2009, while he was in custody in a criminal case. He submitted his representation to the Jail Superintendent on 19.5.2009, who, in his turn, forwarded the same to the State Government on 20.5.2009. The order of detention has been affirmed on 10.6.2009(Annexure-8), in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act. The representation was thus disposed of after a delay of twenty days. Not even semblance of explanation has been offered in the counter affidavit to explain the delay. Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases have held that such an enormous delay in considering the detenue‟s representation goes to the root of 6 the matter and Per Se render the order of detention invalid. 8. In the result, we allow this writ petition and the order of detention passed against the petitioner is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be at liberty unless needed in any other case(s). (S K Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) S.K.Pathak/