Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned J. C. to G. P. - II. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith from preventive detention which has been extended vide letter dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Under Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand.
(2.) It appears that initially the petitioner was detained in terms of Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act which was confirmed by the State Government pursuant to the opinion of the Advisory Board. The petitioner was initially detained on 18.07.2016 for a period of three months which was subsequently extended on 29.08.2016 and thereafter on 28.11.2016. The petitioner had challenged the initial as well as the subsequent orders of detention before this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 282 of 2016 in which vide judgment dated 23.02.2017 it was held as follows: " "Reverting back to the case of Cherukuri , it has clearly been held that passing a detention order for a period of 12 months at a stretch without proper review is deterrent to the rights of the detenu. It was further indicated therein that the legislature had specifically provided the mechanism "Advisory Board" to review the detention of a person. The act of the State Government in extending the period of detention of the petitioners without referring such recommendation before the Advisory Board virtually amounts to passing of a detention order for a continuous period of 12 months since no review is being made by the most important wing in the entire structural aspect of recommendation of preventive detention of a detenu till its confirmation by the Advisory Board. The safeguard, which has been provided in favour of a detenu by the legislature has been given a complete go-bye and such act on the part of the State definitely frustrates the very object and purpose of putting such mechanism of confirmation by a Advisory Board in the entire scheme of the Act with respect to preventive detention of a detenu. In such view of the matter, therefore, continuous detention of the petitioners after the expiry of first three months of their detention is bad in the eyes of law and therefore the very orders passed separately in the case of the present petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside. These wit applications are allowed."
(3.) It appears that on 22.02.2017 the detention order was further extended till 27.05.2017. A perusal of the order dated 22.02.2017 does reveal that the opinion of the Advisory Board was never taken and the continuous detention of the petitioner was not subjected to any review as has been engrafted in the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act.;