IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.984 of 2010 CHUNNI SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & OS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha Mr. Bidhan Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar No. 1, GP 14 Mr. Pawan Kumar, AC to GP 14 ***** 06. 09.11.2010 The present Criminal Writ Petition has been filed by Chunni Singh, who claims to be the brother of Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh, son of Late Janardan Singh, resident of Village – Jaitpur, P.S. – Barahia, District – Lakhisarai, who was ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai by his Order, contained in Memo No. 326 / Legal, dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure-3). The above-noted order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai did not contain as to what was the period for which the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh had been detained. It appears that subsequent to passing of the above-noted Annexure-3, the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai had communicated the grounds upon which he was satisfied that he being an eminent danger due to acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace and such required the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh to be detained under section 12 (2) of the 2 Bihar Control of Crimes Act. The District Magistrate pointed out four grounds by citing four substantive criminal cases, which have been registered in Barahiya Police Station against the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh by some others known or unknown, in which the complicity of the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh was indicated after investigating into the allegations. The District Magistrate also annexed for heightening his satisfaction seven previous cases, which were registered against the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh. It was appended to the above-noted Memo No. 325, dated 1406.2010 (Annexure-4). It is pertinent to point out that in either of the two Memos, Annexure-3 and 4, there was no mention as in the basic order of detention, Annexure-3 about the period for which the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh was detained. This is one of the grounds upon which the detention of the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh has been assailed before us. Besides, it has also been pointed out that the representation which was filed by the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh to the Principal Secretary, Home (Police), Government of Bihar, which was sent through Registered Post on 16.07.2010 (Annexure-6) was not disposed of and while the same remained pending with 3 the State Government, it confirmed the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai by issuing the order contained in Annexure-7. Not only that the further order of confirmation indicating the period of detention was passed by the State Government in the light of the opinion of the Advisory Board, which was communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 5695, dated 13.07.2010, which appears at page 30 of the present petition. While hearing the present petition, the grounds were confined mainly to two, that’s, (1) that the order of detention was a blanket order inasmuch as there was no mention of the period for which the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh was detained and (2) that the order of confirmation which was issued by the State Government was in complete conflagration of the provisions of the above-noted Act, which require the consideration of the representation of the detenue and disposal of the same after a speaking order containing reasons for rejection of the same, if it had been rejected by the State Government. So far as the first ground is concerned, the learned G.P. 14 initially resisted the ground by pointing out to us that as the contents of Memo No. 325, dated 4 14.06.2010 (Annexure-4) indicated that the order of detention was passed initially for three months presuming that it was the part of Annexure 3 and as such the Court should adopt the period as contained in Annexure-4 as period for which the order issued by Annexure 3 could be substituted. Subsequently, he attempted to impress upon us by drawing our attention towards provisions of section 12 (2) (proviso) to submit that it was not at all necessary to mention the period of detention in the notification containing the detention order because the statute itself has to be read to contain the period for which the said orders will be substituted. Section 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act reads as under: “Power to make order detaining certain persons: - (1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements can not be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained. 5 (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may by an order in writing direct, that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) exercise the powers conferred upon by the said sub-section: Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State Government under this sub- section shall not, in the first instance exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time. (3) When any order is made by District Magistrate, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall 6 remain in force for more than 12 days after the making thereof unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. Provided that where under section 17 the grounds of detention are communicated by the officer making the order after five days but not later than ten days from the date of detention, this sub-section shall apply subject to the modification that, for the words “twelve days”, the words “fifteen days” shall be substituted.” On perusal of sub-section (2) of the above section, we find that the District Magistrate, if he was satisfied on the existence of certain grounds justifying the detention of any person on account of prevalence of certain circumstances or the circumstances which may prevail subsequently that it is necessary to issue an order detaining any person so as to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he may issue such an order of detention. The above provisions further indicate that the order has to be in writing and that it has to be for a certain period for which the person could be detained. That period appears clarified by the legislature by appending a 7 proviso to sub-section 2, which indicates that the detention order initially has to be only for a period of three months and the State Government after being satisfied about the existence of reasons in that behalf may extend the period from time to time, but in no case it can exceed a period of one year. When we come to Annexure – 3, we find that there is no mention of any period for which the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh had been detained. It is true that Annexure-4, i.e., Memo No. 325, dated 14.06.2010, does contain a statement that the detention was for the period of three months, but the learned Government Pleader was fairly conceding that on perusal of the two documents, i.e., Anneuxre-3 and 4, it would be very difficult for him to defend the action of the District Magistrate by submitting that Memo No. 326, dated 14.06.2010 had not preceded Memo no. 325, dated 14.06.2010. Thus what we find is that the order of detention contained in Annexure-3 is clearly a blanket order, which was in clear violation of the provisions of section 12(2) of the said Act. As regards the second contention about the non-consideration and non-disposal of the representation sent by the detenue to the Government 8 through its Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, the learned Government Pleader did not dispute the fact that the mode chosen by the detenue to transmit the representation to the Government was not an illegal mode, in spite of the order of the District Magistrate that he represent to the Government through the Superintendent of the concerned Jail. It was not disputed that the representation has not been disposed of. Thus we take a view that representation is still pending and there could not be any question of the same being rejected. No detention order could have been confirmed unless the Government had considered the representation of the detenue and had disposed it of by a reasoned order. That being not the situation we find that the confirmation order issued by the Government of Bihar contained in Anneuxre-5, which confirmed the order of District Magistrate detaining the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky Singh appears completely in conflagration of the law and the provision of Act, which could not be supported by the constitutional provisions. In the result we find merit in the writ application and accordingly quash the Annexures – 3, 5 and 7 and direct that the said Vikash Kumar @ Vikky 9 Singh be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. This writ application is allowed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)