SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Pat) 1184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Prince Kumar, S/o. Raja Ram Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 403 of 2022
Decided On : 15-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shashank Shekhar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, AC to AG.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that any breach of mandatory statutory requirement of the law of preventive detention shall render the exercise of such power illegal and unconstitutional, emphasizing the importance of following the laws made to exercise power of preventive detention.

Headnote:

Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention - Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, Section 12, Section 21, Section 22, Section 23 - The court discussed the legality of the orders of preventive detention, the extension of the period of detention, and the revocation of detention orders under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act and emphasized that the order of preventive detention passed after the petitioner's release was illegal and unconstitutional, violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ application seeking the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus and quashing of an order for preventive detention. The petitioner was put under preventive detention for an extended period, released, and then apprehended again based on a subsequent order of preventive detention.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the subsequent order of preventive detention was illegal and unconstitutional, violating the petitioner's rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 23(2) of the Act. The court quashed the impugned order and ordered the petitioner's release.

Issues: The issues included the legality of the orders of preventive detention, the extension of the period of detention, and the revocation of detention orders under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 23(2) of the Act, which clearly stipulates that the revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not bar making of a fresh detention order under Section 12 of the Act against the person in any case where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry.

Final Decision: The impugned order dated 04.11.2022 was quashed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released from detention forthwith.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh. J.

The present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking issuance of writ in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus and quashing of an order issued by the Department of Home, Government of Bihar, dated 04.11.2022 whereby an order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been affirmed.

2. The effect of the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 read with the order of the District Magistrate dated 04.02.2022 was, putting the petitioner under preventive detention for a period of three months from 04.02.2022 till 03.05.2022. The writ petition was filed on 13.04.2022. Subsequently, taking aid of sub-section (2) of Section 12 and Section 21 read with Section 22 of the Act, the period of preventive detention which was originally for a period of three months up to 03.05.2022 came to be extended for further period of three months from 04.05.2022 to 03.08.2022 by an order dated 29.04.2022. The said period of detention was again extended for a period of three months invoking the same provisions of the Act for a period of 04.08.2022 to 03.11.2022 by an order dated 02.08.2022. The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 1 of 2022 seeking amendment in the writ petition for questioning the legality of the subsequent orders of extension of the period of preventive detention including the order dated 02.08.2022.

3. There is yet another development which is not in dispute. After completion of the extended period of preventive detention on 03.11.2022, the petitioner was released from detention on 04.11.2022 at 12:00 noon, as at the time of his release, there was no order of preventive detention operating against him. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner was subsequently apprehended on 05.11.2022 again on the strength of an order dated 04.11.2022 issued by the Home Department (Police) purportedly extending the period of preventive detention of the petitioner for a period up to 03.02.2022 in continuation with the original order dated 25.02.2022 and subsequent orders extending period of detention.

4. By filing I.A. No. 2 of 2022, the petitioner has sought further amendment in the relief portion of the writ petition for seeking quashing of the said order dated 04.11.2022 served on the petitioner on 05.12.2022, allowed by an order dated 14.11.2022 passed in this case.

5. The said order dated 04.11.2022 has been brought on record by way Annexure-9 to the writ application. It is the petitioner's case that the said order 04.11.2022 is wholly without jurisdiction in view of the clear provision under Section 23 of the Act and the action of the State authorities in apprehending the petitioner on 05.11.2022 after the period of preventive detention, originally passed, had expired is wholly illegal and violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

6. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assailing the original order of detention has submitted, questioning the action of the respondents in putting the petitioner under preventive detention on the strength of the impugned order dated 25.02.2022, that it is violative of the mandatory constitutional requirements enumerated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India on various counts including the fact that the petitioner's representation against the order of preventive detention was not expeditiously disposed of by the competent authority and the disposal of the petitioner's representation does not disclose any reason for rejection. He has submitted that immediately after the order of preventive detention was served upon the petitioner on 06.02.2022, he had handed over his representation to the authorities in Bhagalpur jail on 07.02.2022. The jail authorities took three days to forward the petitioner's representation and sent it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top