JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :— This Appeal and the Writ Petition challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad under section 12(2) of The Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the said Act). The order was passed on 15th January, 1985 and was served on the petitioner on 7th December, 1985. The impugned order was approved by the Government on 15th January, 1985.

2. The said Act was an Act to make special provisions for the control and suppression of anti-social elements with a view to maintenance of public order. Section 12 deals with power to make orders for detaining persons.

3. Clause (d) of section 2 of the said Act states Anti-Social Element as a person who is :

(i) either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offences, punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code; or

(ii) habitually commits or abets the commission of offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or

(iii) who by words or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, language caste or community or any other grounds whatsoever, feelings of enmity of hatred between different religions, racial or language groups of castes or communities; or

(iv) has been found habitually passing indecent remarks to, or teasing women or girls; or

(v) who has been convicted of an offence under Section 25, 26, 27, 28 or 29 of the Arms Act of 1959.

4. Under section 3, the power is there of externment on certain conditions. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 12 of the said Act provide as follows:

"12. Power to make, orders detaining certain persons - (1) The State Government may if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained.

(2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may by an order in writing direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) exercise the power conferred upon by the said sub-section :

Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time."

5. The other provisions are not material for the present purpose. In so far as these are relevant have been dealt with in the judgment under appeal and it is not necessary to reiterate these again.

6. The High Court in the judgment under appeal has referred to the order of detention exhaustively. The High Court has narrated the facts in the judgment under appeal and stated as follows :

"On 11-3-84 on a confidential information a raid was organised under the leadership of the officer-in-charge of Dhanbad Police Station to apprehend one Sri Raghunath Singh an absconder detenu of the National Security Act. According to the confidential information he was going to witness a Qwali programme at Sijua gate within Jagota Police station. As soon as the raiding party reached the Sijua gate they saw that Raghunath Singh was coming out of club and was going towards Sijua More. The police cordoned him and told him about his arrest under the National Security Act. On this the aforementioned Raghunath Singh called one Sakaldeo Singh who was coming towards him along with his associates