JUDGMENT In para 7 of the petition, it has been mentioned that the petitioner (meaning thereby detenu) was detained by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, vide order dated 12.8.1993, on alleged 10 grounds, as narrated in the attached chart. The petitioner was earlier detained and released by the Advisory Board twice, and, at that relevant time, out of 10 charges, 8 were narrated, and, thus, there was no reason for the District Magistrate to add the aforesaid 8 grounds afresh, in order to make out a case against the petitioner. In the affidavit, filed by the petitioner Shrimati Amna Begum, it has been stated that "the detenu was earlier released by the Advisory Board, Jabalpur, in 1991 and 1992. Even then, the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, relied on incidents pertaining to those years and furnished false and fabricated documents before the Advisory Board, in order to obtain a favourable order. In this manner, the detention of my son has been held legal. On behalf of the respondents, no return had been filed - although the respondents, when called upon to answer a rule issued on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, were under an obligation to submit their return and to place all the relevant facts before the Court, but the same has not been done. Therefore, in the absence of any return, on behalf of the respondents, submission made in para 7 of the petition, and reiterated in the affidavit of the petitioner, that the detenu had been earlier released by the Advisory Board, Jabalpur, in 1991 and 1992, has to be accepted, as the same had not been controverted on behalf of the respondents. The first 8 grounds, mentioned in Annexure-A, could not have been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, while passing the impugned order of detention dated 12.8.1993. Besides this, out of the first 8 grounds mentioned in Annexure-A, 7 grounds relate to incidents which had taken place in the year 1991 and ground No.8 relates to the incident which had taken place on 6.1.1992 and, thus, states as a long period had elapsed between the said incidents and the date when the order of detention was passed in the present case. Grounds 1 to 8, mentioned in Annexure-A, should not l1ave been considered and repeated afresh - when the same had been considered earlier and that the detenu had been released twice by the Advisory Board in the years 1991 and 1992. This view also finds support from (1989) 2 SCC 318 (Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. N.L. Kahar and others). Regarding the last two grounds narrated in Annexure-A, the submission was that the charges though recent i.e., relating to the incidents which took place on 10.8.1993 and 11.8.1993, these charges could be tried by a competent, Court of law, and, if the detenu was found to be guilty, he would be punished under the Indian Penal Code. Further, the submission was that the detenu had already been picked up by the police during the mid-night of 8.8.1993 and was incarceration since then, as had been pleaded in the petition, and, hence, the incidents, alleged to have taken place on 10.8.1993 and 11.8.1993, were concocted, because the detenu was already in the custody of the police since the mid-night of 8.8.1993. These facts have been controverted on behalf of the respondents since no return was filed. The petitioner had verified the contents of the petition in her affidavit and, hence, in the absence of any counter affidavit or return on behalf of the respondents, it has to be presumed that the aforesaid facts have been correctly mentioned in the petition. Thus, the involvement of the detenu, in the alleged incidents dated 10.8.1993 and 11.8.1993, also appears to be doubtful, because, according to the allegations made in the petition, the detenu was already in the custody of the police, after being picked up by the police on the mid-night of 8.8.1993. (1989) 3 SCC 590 and (1989) 2 SCC 318 followed. Petition allowed.