- (1.) 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 05.11.2011 and the subsequent orders of approval. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the said orders on the following grounds: (a) The concerned authorities did not apply their mind while passing the said orders, in as much as, the bail granted to the petitioner, in some of the cases, were not taken into account. For this, he relied on Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2012 2 SCC 72. (b) There was no likelihood of release of the petitioner on bail in the criminal cases, and therefore, the order of detention was unwarranted. For this, he relied on Paragraphs 22 to 27 of the judgment Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another, 2011 5 SCC 244. (c) Out of 8 criminal cases, petitioner has been convicted in two and six are pending, but on the ground that the witnesses can be influenced by the petitioner, the detention order could not be passed. For this, he relied on Paragraph 38 of the judgment Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi Vs. State of Manipur and Others, 2010 9 SCC 618 .
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned orders. He also relied on Section 12A 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.;