The law of preventive detention should not be used arbitrarily to deprive a citizen of his right to life and liberty. The detaining authority must be satisfied that the person's case falls squarely within the relevant law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav assisted by Ms. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the letter no. 3052 dated 24.08.2021 issued by the Secretary, Department of Home, Prisoner and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the Government of Jharkhand has sanctioned the order of detention of the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002 (for the sake of brevity herein after to be referred to as the 'the Act, 2002') pursuant to request made by the District Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide letter no.891 dated 17.08.2021. The letter dated 26.10.2021 whereby sanction of order of detention under Section 12(2) of the Act, 2002 issued by the Secretary, Department of Home, Prisoner and Disaster Management is also under challenge. The recommendation of the District Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide letter dated 17.08.2021 has also been sought to be quashed. The order dated 03.11.2021 by which further three months' detention order has been extended, has also been challenged in this petition.

3. Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no.4 vide letter no.891 dated 17.08.2021 has ordered to detain the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Act, 2002 for a period of three months. He further submitted that in the said letter dated 17.08.2021, reference was given that ten cases are pending against the petitioner. He also submitted that vide letter dated 24.08.2021, the Secretary, Department of Home, Prisoner and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand has sanctioned the order of detention of the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Act, 2002 on the request of the District Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. The further sanction order dated 26.10.2021 has been issued by the said Department. He further submitted that vide letter dated 28.10.2021, respondent no.5 has recommended and requested to extend the period of detention of the petitioner from 17.11.2021 to 18.02.2022. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no.4 vide letter dated 03.11.2021 further extended the period of detention for three months w.e.f. 17.11.2021 to 18.02.2022. By way of referring paragraph 13 of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the cases against the petitioner, which are pending and disposed of. By way of referring letter dated 12.08.2021, he submitted that by only two cases have been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner for last three years and in one of the case the petitioner has been granted regular bail by this Court and in another case the bail application of the petitioner is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar. The Advisory Board, Jharkhand under Section 19 of the Act, 2002 found sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has already remained in detention for about nine months. By way of referring Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act, 2002, he submitted that proviso stipulates that detention order can be extended from time to time, but not exceeding three months at any one time. By way of referring Section 22 of the Act, 2002, he submitted that maximum period for which any person may be detained shall be twelve months from the date of detention. He also submitted that unnecessarily the petitioner has been detained and this is the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 415.

4. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment is quoted herein below :

“19. To tear these observations out of context would be fraught with great danger when it comes to the liberty of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The reason for not adopting a narrow meaning of “publi