- (1.) Heard the counsel appearing from both sides and it is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of both parties.
(2.) This application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the order dated 6-12-2001 passed by the Deputy Secretary (respondent No. 2), whereby and whereunder the State Government has confirmed the detention order dated 14-3-2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Chaibasa under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 against the petitioner.
(3.) It is alleged that after receiving copy of the detention order, the petitioner filed a detailed representation against the detention order before the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand and, which was rejected and by order dated 6-12-2001 the respondent No. 2 confirmed the detention order dated 14-3-2001 which was passed by the District Magistrate, Chaibasa. It is further claimed that though the detention order was passed as back as on 14-3-2001 but the copy of the same was served upon the petitioner on 15-10-2001 and due to which the detention order is fit to be quashed on this sole ground. It is further claimed that the detention order was passed in a mechanical way without application of mind as five criminal cases have been mentioned in the detention order as ground of detention, but the petitioner has already been acquitted in two of the said cases. It is further claimed that four cases have been preferred by the respondents, out of which the petitioner has been acquitted in two cases. He was already acquitted in Muffasil PS Case No. 102 of 1988 by order dated 24-1-1996. He was also acquitted in Muffasil PS Case No. 45/96 by the order/judgment dated 25-7-1998. He was also acquitted in Rail PS Case No. 16/96 by order dated 17-1-1999 and as such out of seven cases of which reference was made against the detenu, he has already been acquitted in the five cases and in the remaining two cases, he has been enjoying privilege of bail. It is further alleged that the ground for detaining the petitioner as mentioned by the Detaining Authority are also vague and without any cogent reasons and for which the order impugned is not sustainable and the detention order is fit to be quashed.;