An order of preventive detention cannot be made against a person already in custody unless there is reasonable apprehension of their release on bail. The impugned order of detention must be based on reliable material and show proximity of time between the alleged commission of offences and the order of detention.

I.A. ANSARI, J.

By his letter, dated 20.12.2013, the Superintendent of Police, Arwal, addressed to respondent No. 3, namely, District Magistrate, Arwal, sought for detention of the present petitioner under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. Following the letter so received, respondent No. 3, namely, District Magistrate, Arwal, made, on 13.01.2014, an order, in exercise of powers under Section 12 (2) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, placing the petitioner under preventive detention, for a period of one year, i.e., until 12.01.2015.

2. With the order of detention so made as mentioned above, the petitioner was also served with a copy of the grounds of detention, contained in memo No. 17, dated 13.01.2014, issued by respondent No. 4, namely, District Magistrate, Arwal. The said order of detention was approved by the Advisory Board on 28.02.2014 and, following approval of the Advisory Board, the State Government, by order, dated 16.04.2014, confirmed the said order of preventive detention, dated 12.03.2014.

3. The grounds of detention, which were furnished to the petitioner, mention two cases, namely, (i) Arwal Police Station Case No. 70 of 2013, dated 04.04.2013, registered under Sections 147/148/149/307/353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959; and (ii) Arwal Police Station Case No. 71 of 2013, dated 04.04.2013, registered under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 25(1-B)A/26/35 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.

4. Aggrieved by his detention, the petitioner has made this application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to get set aside and quashed not only the order of preventive detention, dated 13.01.2014, but also the order of approval, dated 28.02.2014, passed by the Advisory Board, Government of Bihar, and the order, dated 12.03.2014, passed by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 21(1) read with Section 22 of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, confirming the order of detention, dated 13.01.2014, aforementioned and directing that the petitioner shall remain in detention till 12.01.2015.

5. We have heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned Assistant Counsel to the Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State.

6. While considering the legality and validity of the impugned order of detention, it needs to be noted, as already indicated above, that in terms of the grounds of detention, which have been furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner is shown to be an accused in two cases, namely, (i) Arwal Police Station Case No. 70 of 2013, and (ii) Arwal Police Station Case No. 71 of 2013.

7. In both the cases aforementioned, charge sheets have been submitted against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody in connection with the cases aforementioned and there is no material available before respondent No. 3, namely, District Magistrate, Arwal, which would go to sow that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail.

8. While considering the present writ petition, what needs to be borne in mind is that personal liberty of a person is sacrosanct and State cannot take away or abridge a persons liberty without following the procedure prescribed by law; or else, the State would be treated to have violated such a persons fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

9. The question, which confronts us, is: whether in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the order of preventive detention, dated 20.02.2014, is a legally valid order of detention and if this order, dated 20.02.2014, is not found to be, in the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, in consonance with law, it would naturally follow that the rejection of the petitioners representation by the Advisory Board, by order dated 28.02.2014, was wholly illegal and the order, dated 12.03.201