- (1.) BY Court. - In this writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner has impugned the orders of preventive detention passed against him under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. 2000 ('Act' in short) dated 5.11.2011 and the subsequent orders of approval.
(2.) MR . Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the said orders on the following grounds: 2012 (2) SCC 72, Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra and others. 2011 (5) SCC 244, Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another. 2010 (9) SCC 618, Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur and others. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned orders. He also relied on Section 12 -A of the Act. He also submitted that whether bail was granted, in one or other case, was not relevant. He further submitted that the chance of influencing witnesses is not the sole ground. There was likelihood for release of the petitioner on bail. He was granted bail in other cases and in one case his prayer for bail was rejected by learned District Judge and then, petitioner was expected to move this Court, which he did and was granted bail by this Court. He was also granted bail in the appeals against conviction. The judgments relied by petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, it was submitted that this Court should not interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the authorities, as they have acted in public interest.
(3.) IN our opinion, the impugned orders do not warrant interference.;