D.N.UPADHYAY, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition (criminal) has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 10.5.2013 issued by the District Magistrate, Bokaro vide memo No. 3 -563/Legal in exercise of power conferred u/s 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for short), whereby the petitioner has been directed to be detained in custody till 9.5.2014 and also to quash the order dated 21.6.2013 issued vide memo No. 3/CCA/24/16/2012 -2559/ Ranchi passed by Under Secretary (Home), Government of Jharkhand by which aforesaid order passed by the District Magistrate has been confirmed.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders and directions, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the ground that the District Magistrate has considered the facts which was not available and the cases referred, making grounds for detention of the petitioner in custody do not come under the purview of public tranquility, rather the cases referred, relate to respective individual which would be a case of law and order and for that the petitioner cannot be detained in custody for such a period. It is contended that - (i) in Chandankiyari (Amlabad) P.S. Case No. 59 of 2012 registered u/s 386/307/326/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner was granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 5.3.2013 passed in B.A. No. 440 of 2013; (ii) in Chandankiyari (Amlabad) P.S. Case No. 144 of 2012 registered u/s 467/468/471/420/120(B) of the I.P.C., he has been granted bail by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro vide order dated 6.12.2012; (iii) in Chandankiyari (Bhojudih) P.S. Case No. 43 of 2005 registered u/s 386/387/120(B) of the I.P.C., the petitioner was acquitted from the charges vide judgment dated 22.3.2013; (iv) in Jaipur (Purulia) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2005 registered u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, he has been granted bail by learned ACJM, Raghunathpur, Purulia by order dated 25.2.2013; and (v) in Kashipur (Purulia) P.S. Case No. 25 of 2012 registered u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, he has been granted provisional bail by learned Sessions Judge, Purulia on 16.5.2012 till 17.6.2013. When the petitioner was likely to be released from custody, the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro on his own by referring aforesaid cases had sent proposal to the District Magistrate, Bokaro for detaining the petitioner in custody. It is made clear that no pubic petition was filed to the effect that petitioner is a threat to the society or he had been threatening any one form jail for the purpose of extorting money. In order to strengthen the recommendation, few station diary entries made at the instance of police itself, have also been cited. On the basis of proposal made by the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate, Bokaro has passed impugned order dated 10.5.2013 in exercise of powers conferred u/s 12(2) of the Act. The petitioner had made representation against order of detention, but it was not properly considered and the authority concerned rejected the same arbitrarily. After having opinion of Advisory Board, order of the District Magistrate was approved by the Government of Jharkhand vide 3/CCA/24/16/2012 -2559/ Ranchi dated 21.6.2013. The detention order so passed and approved is contrary to law and detention of the petitioner is nothing but an illegal detention and therefore aforesaid orders are liable to be quashed and appropriate direction to release the petitioner be passed. It was submitted that writ petitioner was acquitted in one of the cases referred by the detaining authority. Some irrelevant facts which were not available, were also considered against passing of such order. By referring the judgment reported in AIR 1974 (SC) 1161 Biram Chand Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was pointed out that order under the Act is the decision of the detaining authority which depend on subjective satisfaction. If one of the grounds is non -existent or irrelevant or is not available under the law, the entire detention order will fall, since it is not possible to predicate as to whether the detaining authority would have made an order for detention even in the absence of non - existent or irrelevant ground. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible and in that view of the matter the impugned order is invalid and the detention on this score alone is liable to be held illegal. The learned counsel has also relied on the judgment reported in 1987 Bihar Law Judgments 300 Pappu Yadav alias Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. State of Bihar and others, in which it was held that - (B) Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, Section 12(2) -Order of detention -Passed on several grounds -One of those grounds -If found irrelevant -Order becomes unsustainable. He has also relied on the judgment reported in (1974) 1 SCC 185 Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar and submitted that the there is distinction between law and order and public order. If the activities of the detenue do not disturb the public order or the society at large or prejudicial, then he cannot be detained by exercise of power conferred u/s 12(2) of the Act.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents -State has submitted that Section 12A of the Act was not available when the judgments cited by the writ petitioner were passed. Section 12A speaks as follows: - "12 -A. Grounds of detention severable. - (1) Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention whether made before or after the commencement of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 under section 12 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly - (a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are. (i) vague. (ii) non -existent (iii) non -relevant (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever. and it is not therefore possible to hold that the Government or officer making such order would have been satisfied as provided in section 12 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention. (b) The Government or officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said section after being satisfied as provided in that section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds." By referring provision contained u/s 12A, it was submitted that even if some of the grounds are found vague or non -existent or irrelevant or not connected proximately or invalid for any other reason, shall be no ground for setting aside order of detention. It was further submitted that the cases under reference on which the detaining authority satisfied himself before passing detention order are not solely affecting the individuals, rather criminal activities of the writ petitioner was so that it was affecting the public at large. He is terrors in the society and nobody dare to speak against him. The facts narrated in the F.I.R. lodged against writ petitioners clearly indicate that he used to indulge in managing tender in Railways and for that the contractor of his choice are only permitted to file tender to receive contract and the person who did not agree to the wish of the writ petitioner, is being threatened with dire consequences and subjected to assault. This sort of activity of the writ petitioner is not confined to causing grievance only to individuals but this is causing disturbance to the tender process of the Government and the activities come well within purview of public order and prejudicial. The representation filed by the writ petitioner was well considered and after giving thought and consideration and also after being recommended by the Advisory Board, the detention order passed by the District Magistrate was approved by the Government. There is no merit in this writ application and the same is liable to be dismissed. ;