IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.329 of 2010 Sanjay Singh @ Mantu Sharma Son of Sri Vijay Sharma R/o village Gamhari, Police Station Uphara, Dist.-Aurangabad. --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Commissioner, Home(Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary Home (Police), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Patna. 5. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. ---- Respondents. ----------- 05. 20.05.2010 Heard Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General no.2 for the State. The petitioner calls in question order of preventive detention dated 18.01.2010, passed by the respondent District Magistrate (Annexure-1), which was subsequently approved by the Government by order dated 27.01.2010, passed in terms of Section 12(3) of the Bihar Control of Crime Act,1981 ( for short the ‘Act’). The order dated 09.03.2010, passed by the State Government in terms of Section 21(1) read with Section 22 (2) of the Act has also been challenged. Background facts in a nut shell are as follows:- The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, made a recommendation which ultimately formed the basis of order under Section 12(2) of the Act by the respondent District Magistrate. It appears from the detention order (Annexure-1), that the petitioner was found involved in three substantive criminal cases all of which appear to have been instituted under diverse Sections of the 2 Penal Code as well as the Arms Act. It appears therefrom that at the time of passing the order under Section 12(2), it was found that the petitioner had already been released in connection with two of the substantive criminal cases but was still lodged in jail custody in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case no. 421 of 2009, dated 12.10.2009, instituted under diverse Sections of the Arms Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, apart from various Sections of the Penal Code. The grounds of detention were duly served upon the writ petitioner whereafter he made a representation from the jail custody through the Superintendent of Jail on 28.01.2010. Such representation was forwarded by the Jail Superintendent to the detaining authorities (respondent District Magistrate), on 30.01.2010, which was received in the office of the District Magistrate on 02.02.2010. On 03.02.2010, the District Magistrate sought for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Patna, which was received in his office on 08.02.2010. The matter was thereafter considered by the District Magistrate, and recommendation was made to the Government for rejection of the said representation on 09.02.2010. The Government in the concerned department ultimately considered and rejected the said representation on 22.02.2010. Be it noted here that on 23.02.2010, the detenue writ petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board constituted in terms of Section 18 of the Act, and on perusal of the materials placed before it, the same was approved. The Government accordingly passed the final order in terms of Section 22(1) read with 22(2) of the Act. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity of the order(s) detaining the writ petitioner made two-fold submissions. It has been contended that there has been unexplained and inordinate delay in consideration and disposal of his representation which was filed on 28.01.2010. It is further contended that the admitted position is that when the initial order of the detention was passed under Section 12(2) of the Act, the detenue writ petitioner was already lodged in jail custody. It is thus contended that there was absolutely no justification for taking action in terms of diverse provisions of the Act as the petitioner was already lodged in custody in connection with substantive police case. Learned counsel also highlighted that admittedly the petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board much beyond the period of three weeks which is in contravention of Section 19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, supported the impugned action(s). We propose to dispose of this application on a short issue and as such we feel no necessity to consider and adjudicate the issue(s) raised by the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner was in custody in connection with a case when the impugned orders were passed in terms of Section 12(2) and 12(3) of the Act. We are informed at the Bar that the petitioner is still in jail custody in connection with the said case. We, therefore, do not find any justification for continuance of the order of detention when he continues to be in custody. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order(s) 4 passed under diverse Sections of the Act detaining him for a period of one year with effect from 18.01.2010 is/are fit to be set aside. We, however, make it clear that if the State Government or detaining authority is satisfied with regard to the justification of making such an order, they may take action afresh in accordance with law. The present order should not be taken to be an expression of the views of this Court whether or not the authority can pass an order of preventive detention in anticipation of release on bail in substantive case(s). Sym (S.K.Katriar,J) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)