- (1.) This writ application has been filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of detention passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in exercise of the powers under S. 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, Annexure-1, and the order of approval of the aforesaid detention order by the Government of Jharkhand, vide Annexure-3, and the order of the State Government passed under S. 20(1) read with S. 22 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which the detention of the petitioner was ordered to be till 6-6-2002, vide Annexure-5.
(2.) The petitioner used to work as a petty Contractor and Sub-Contractor and was residing at Ranchi. He was an accused in the murder case of one Bijay Singh Soi, a Former M.P. and he was convicted by the Sessions Judge and his appeal against conviction is pending in the High Court and the petitioner had remained in custody since 29-9-1997 at Chaibasa. On 7-6-2001, while in detention, he was served with a copy of the detention order dated 6-6-2001 (Annexure-1) and he came to know that the detaining authority was satisfied with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therewere reasons to fear that his activities could not be prevented otherwise then by the immediate arrest; consequently the respondent No. 2, the detaining authority, by the said order, directed his detention for a period of 3 months in Chaibasa jail. Here the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was in jail at the time of passing of the detention order. But as the detaining authority did not know this fact, it directed his immediate arrest being necessary which indicates that the detaining authority has not applied its mind, while passing the impugned order. The order was served upon him along with the FIR of three cases but papers relating to his criminal history were not served to the petitioner and the objection was raised by the petitioner immediately before the Jail Authorities. The petitioner has a further case that because of the non-supply of the FIR and the connected documents which had been considered by the detaining authority, while passing the detention order, vitiates the detention because he was prejudiced in his defence. The petitioner, thereafter, filed representation, annexure-4, and the State Government, by annexure 5, passed the order of his detention till 6-6-2002 by order dated 23-7-2001.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the State Government, while passing the order, Annexure-5, has enhanced his period of detention to 12 months which is beyond the jurisdiction of the State Government and consequently, it vitiates the detention and the detention of the petitioner becomes illegal. According to the petitioner, the grounds that were incorporated for his detention could be divided into two categories the category in which the crimes were inter-related and the category in which the crimes were independent of the inter-related crimes. Thus, crimes committed by him at best can be related to the law and order and not to be public order. The further case of the petitioner is that at the time of passing of the impugned order, several cases under the Arms Act have already been considered by the detaining authority which is not permissible in view of S. 2(d) of the Act. His further case is that since the detaining authority has considered all the cases, while passing the order of detention, forming his subjective satisfaction, the non-applicability of even one of then vitiates the order of detention. It is further stated that the power to preventive detention should be springly exercised and the impugned order is violative of the rights guaranteed under Arts. 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.;