- (1.) WHILE the petitioner was in jail custody at Jamshedpur in connection with Mango P.S. case no.148 of 2009, he was served with the order dated 17.5.2009 (Annexure 1) passed under section 12(1) of the Bihar (Jharkhand) Crime Control Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ˜the Act') by the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, respondent no.4 on the same day along with the grounds of detention whereby and whereunder the order of detention was passed for a period of 12 months. Subsequently, the State Government in exercise of power conferred under section 12(3) of the Act, vide its order dated 25.5.2009 (Annexure D to the counter affidavit) approved the order of detention within 12 days, copy of which seems to have been served upon the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed his representation before the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent no.
(2.) WITH a prayer to revoke the order of detention which was rejected by the State Government, vide its order dated 29.6.2009. Thereupon, this application has been filed whereby the order of detention has been challenged to be bad on several counts. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detention order was passed while the petitioner was in custody and as such, the order of detention should have been passed in compelling necessity, satisfaction/reason of which should have been recorded by the respondent but the order of detention as contained in Annexure 1 would go to show that the detaining authority has not recorded any reason whatsoever. In this regard it was submitted that the detaining authority while passing the order of detention in a case where detenu is already in jail is required to record his satisfaction on the basis of the materials placed before him that the detenu is likely to indulge in acts prejudicial to maintenance of public order, if he is enlarged on bail and that he is satisfied from various reports and facts that the detenu is likely to be released on bail but if this satisfaction is not recorded in the order of detention, it would be deemed to have been passed mechanically and as such, it is unsustainable in law.
(3.) LEARNED counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Sayed Abul Ala V/s. Union of India and others [2007 (12) Scale 345] .;