- (1.) THE petitioner on being convicted for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 27 of the Arms Act in Golmuri P.S. case no.157 of 2006 while was serving sentence, was served with an order as contained in memo no.1298 dated 12.6.2008 (Annexure 7) putting the petitioner under detention for one year in terms of the provision as contained in Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said order of detention was approved by the State Government, vide its order as contained in memo no.2948 dated 24.6.2008 (Annexure 8) in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act. Thereupon the petitioner made representation before the State Government, which was rejected, vide its order as contained in memo no. 1456 dated 11.7.2008 (Annexure 9). Subsequently, case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board which approved the order by holding that sufficient ground is there for passing the order of preventive detention. Thereupon the order of preventive detention was affirmed by the State Government, vide its order as contained in memo no.4023 dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure 10).
(2.) BEING aggrieved with the said order, this writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the aforesaid orders as contained in Annexures 7,8,9 and 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, respondent no.4 while passing the order of preventive detention has taken into consideration two cases, one being Golmuri P.S. case no.145 of 2006 and other being Golmuri P.S. case no.157 of 2006 whreas the petitioner has already been convicted in later case. That apart, four other cases have also been taken into consideration but those cases are of the year 2003 and as such, it can be said to be too stale and moreover, in two of the cases, the petitioner has been acquitted whereas two cases though are pending but the offences alleged are not serious in nature and therefore, there was no necessity of taking recourse of the act for passing the order of detention for maintaining public order.
(3.) ON this background it was submitted that since consideration for passing of the detention order was of the cases which were of the year 2003 having no proximity in between the commission of the offence and passing of order of detention, entire order gets vitiated and moreover, in some of the cases, the petitioner has been acquitted and under this situation, entire order of detention becomes bad in view of the decision rendered in a case of Smt. Bimla Dewan V/s. Lieutenant - Governor of Delhi [1982 SCC (Cri) 484].;