- (1.) BY Court: Heard the parties at length.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for setting aside the detention orders (Annexures 22, 28 and 29) dated 5.7.2011, 15.7.2011 and 12.8.2011 detaining the petitioner under Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 ('the Act' for short). Mr. R. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the short notes and submitted as follows: The apprehension of the detaining authority that on his release the petitioner will create an atmosphere of insecurity, instability and wide spread disturbance among the public at large is not justified, and it is not based on relevant considerations and that it excludes the following relevant considerations: - (i)the service background of the petitioner. (ii)that the petitioner has been granted bail by judicial authority in all the cases which has been made the basis of detention. (iii)that on almost all dates of alleged occurrence in all 2010 cases, petitioner was on military duty and not available for commission of the alleged offences. (iv)that he is not named in any criminal case except one offence inside jail in 2011. (v)that in case no. 218 of 2011, he is not yet remanded although the police prayed for his remand on 4.7.2011. (vi)that he has been acquitted in a criminal case.
(3.) HE therefore submitted that the impugned detention orders have been passed without application of mind, and therefore, they should be quashed. He further submitted that the Sanha dated 26.4.2010 could not be made a ground as the same was lodged by the Officer -in -Charge on vague and general apprehension and without any complaint in that regard. He also submitted that if the petitioner is released, he will join his duty in the armed force unit, where he will be under strict control, surveillance, discipline and supervision of his commanders. Mr. Singh relied on the Division Bench judgment reported in 2006 (3) PLJR 359 Satyendra Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar, (1985) 4 SCC (Cr.) 514 Ramesh Yadav Vs. District Magistrate in support of his contention. He also relied on the judgment reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618 Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi Vs. State of Manipur and Others on the scope of judicial review in such matters.;