BINOD KUMAR SINGH ALIAS BINOD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the detention of the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has been challenged. A prayer, therefore, has been made to direct the release of the petitioner by issuing a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.

(2.) The order under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (for short the Act') was signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad on 5-9-1987 (Annexure 2) but the order could not be served on the petitioner as he was evading arrest. He surrendered on 10-3-1988 in connection with some other case. On 14-3-1988, the petitioner sent a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad stating that he is in Dhanbad jail. He requested therein for issue of production warrant so that he may be produced before him in the detention matter. When the Deputy Commissioner received this letter he passed an order on 28-3-1987 stating that he has received an information through the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad that the petitioner, who is currently lodged in jail is likely to be released on bail. He, therefore, passed an order for service of the detention order on the petitioner in jail as he was of the opinion that his detention was necessary even on that day. A copy of the order has been marked as Annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit filed today on behalf of respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. The detention order was consequently served on the petitioner in jail that date itself, namely 28-3-1988 and the grounds were served on the following day, i e. 29-3-1988.

(3.) Annexure 5 to the writ application is the order dated 15th September, 1987 by which the State Government approved the order of detention dated 5-9-1987 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad against the petitioner. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad has challenged the detention of the petitioner on several grounds. His first attack is that the ground on which the petitioner has been detained is not of a public order rather it is a case of law and order. In order to appreciate his argument it will be convenient to quote the ground. It is as follows : -