Judgment : D. N. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the counsel appearing from both sides and it is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of both parties. ( 2 ) THIS application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the order dated 6-12-2001 passed by the Deputy Secretary (respondent No. 2), whereby and whereunder the State Government has confirmed the detention order dated 14-3-2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Chaibasa under Section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 against the petitioner. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that after receiving copy of the detention order, the petitioner filed a detailed representation against the detention order before the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand and, which was rejected and by order dated 6-12-2001 the respondent No. 2 confirmed the detention order dated 14-3-2001 which was passed by the District Magistrate, Chaibasa. It is further claimed that though the detention order was passed as back as on 14-3-2001 but the copy of the same was served upon the petitioner on 15-10-2001 and due to which the detention order is fit to be quashed on this sole ground. It is further claimed that the detention order was passed in a mechanical way without application of mind as five criminal cases have been mentioned in the detention order as ground of detention, but the petitioner has already been acquitted in two of the said cases. It is further claimed that four cases have been preferred by the respondents, out of which the petitioner has been acquitted in two cases. He was already acquitted in Muffasil PS Case No. 102 of 1988 by order dated 24-1-1996. He was also acquitted in Muffasil PS Case No. 45/96 by the order/judgment dated 25-7-1998. He was also acquitted in Rail PS Case No. 16/96 by order dated 17-1-1999 and as such out of seven cases of which reference was made against the detenu, he has already been acquitted in the five cases and in the remaining two cases, he has been enjoying privilege of bail. He was also acquitted in Rail PS Case No. 16/96 by order dated 17-1-1999 and as such out of seven cases of which reference was made against the detenu, he has already been acquitted in the five cases and in the remaining two cases, he has been enjoying privilege of bail. It is further alleged that the ground for detaining the petitioner as mentioned by the Detaining Authority are also vague and without any cogent reasons and for which the order impugned is not sustainable and the detention order is fit to be quashed. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, the District Magistrate, Chaibasa claiming therein that there is no illegality in the order for detaining the petitioner and sufficient grounds have been narrated for detaining him. It is also claimed that the order impugned was passed after being satisfied about the criminal activities and antecedent history of the petitioner as well as the preventive detention is not a punitive one. It is further claimed that the petitioner-detenu was absconding after the order of detention and communication was made after his arrest as the detenu-petitioner has been detained to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Thus, the order impugned is legal and proper and the petition is fit to be dismissed. ( 5 ) R. S. Mazumdar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted, at the very outset, that the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Chaibasa cannot be sustained in the eye of law as there is no application of mind and the cases mentioned in the grounds for detaining the petitioner of which the petitioner has already been acquitted in five criminal cases and there is no such mention in the detention order as well as the petitioner has already been enjoying the privilege of bail in another cases and that fact has also not been referred in the detention order which was passed as back as on 14-3-2001. It is further argued that the petitioner was served a copy of the order of 14-3-2001 on 15-10-2001 i. e. after seven months of the order and on this score alone the detention order is to be quashed. It is further argued that the petitioner was served a copy of the order of 14-3-2001 on 15-10-2001 i. e. after seven months of the order and on this score alone the detention order is to be quashed. It is further argued that the provisions as laid down under S. 16 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act has not been complied with as the petitioner admittedly was not in custody and even if he was absconding, the provisions as laid down under S. 16 of the Act ought to have been complied with and for non-compliance of the said provision, the detention order cannot be said to be legal and valid. It is further argued that there is no cogent reason assigned by the District Magistrate for detaining the petitioner or showing any act on the part of the petitioner to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as there is only mention in the order that the petitioner is a veteran criminal and if he is released then again he will indulge himself in criminal activities in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the detention order has been passed on the same charges which are the subject-matter of trial before the criminal Courts and on the same charges the petitioner has already been granted bail and as such the order impugned is fit to be quashed. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, Mr. M. Shamim Akhter, learned S. C. II contended before me that there is no illegality in the impugned order as several criminal cases of serious nature are pending against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Criminal Control Act has created authority with new jurisdiction to pass order of preventive detention on the subjective satisfaction even on the ground of suspicion of commission in future acts prejudicial to the community in general and the District Magistrate, Chaibasa passed the order of detention after being satisfied. It is further submitted that the petitioner was absconding and as such the order detaining him was served upon after his arrest and as such the petition is fit to be dismissed. ( 7 ) BEFORE appreciating the rival contentions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of both sides, it is pertinent to note the admitted position in the case. ( 7 ) BEFORE appreciating the rival contentions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of both sides, it is pertinent to note the admitted position in the case. ( 8 ) THE impugned order for detaining the petitioner was passed by the District Magistrate, Chaibasa as back as on 14-3-2001 which was served upon the petitioner on 15-10-2001 as admittedly it was served upon after lapse of seven months. Even if the petitioner is said to be absconding to which Section 16 is clear to this effect, which reads as under : "powers in relation to absconding person- (1) If the State Government or the District Magistrate mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 12 has reason to believe that a person in respect of whom a detention order has been made, has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed, the Government or the District Magistrate may- (A) make a report in writing of the fact to a Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction in the place where the said person ordinarily resides; (B) by order notified in the Official Gazette direct the said person to appear before such officer, at such place and within such period as may be specified in the order. (2) Upon the making of a report against any person under clause (a) of sub-section (1), the provisions of Sections 82, 83, 84 and 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply in respect of such person and his property as if the detention order against him were a warrant of arrest issued by the Magistrate. (3) If any person fails to comply with any order issued under clause (b) of sub-section (1), he shall, unless he proves that it was not possible for him to comply therewith and that he had, within the period specified in the order, informed the officer mentioned in the order of the reason which rendered compliance therewith impossible and of his whereabouts, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) every offence under sub-section (3) shall be cognizable. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) every offence under sub-section (3) shall be cognizable. " ( 9 ) DETENTION order which was kept in abeyance for seven months could not be brought into effect for valid arrest of the petitioner to be put under detention. It is necessary for the authorities to take recourse to the provisions of Section 16 of the said Act, where the person sought to be detained under Section 12 of the Act has been absconding for a considerable time. Any action taken on the basis of detention order under Section 12, which was kept under abeyance for a considerable period without recourse having been taken to provisions of Section 16, cannot be sustained. Further, the detaining authority has given instances of nine cases in which the petitioner is said to be an accused, but petitioner has already been acquitted in Muffasil PS Case No. 13/99, Muffasil PS Case No. 29/99, Muffasil PS Case No. 102/83, Muffasil PS Case No. 45/96 and Chakradharpur Rail PS Case No. 16/96 and petitioner has already been enjoying the privilege of bail in the rest of the cases. But, surprisingly enough, the detaining authority did not mention anything as regards to the acquittal or granting bail to the petitioner in those cases, which also indicates about non-application of mind of the detaining authority. The detention order passed under S. 12 of the Act must be specific and clear. It should indicate about the whole fact relating to the petitioner, who is to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if actually the petitioner was absconding and evading in taking the notice, there was clear provision to act upon as enunciated u/s. 16 of the Act. If immediate arrest of the petitioner was necessary, the respondents have to make a report in writing to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class having territorial jurisdiction and to notify that such person should appear before such Officer, but nothing has been done in this respect. If immediate arrest of the petitioner was necessary, the respondents have to make a report in writing to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class having territorial jurisdiction and to notify that such person should appear before such Officer, but nothing has been done in this respect. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have force as admittedly the provisions as laid down under S. 16 of the Act has not been complied with even if the petitioner said to be absconding and on this score alone the detention order passed by the detaining authority cannot be sustained. ( 11 ) A detention order which was kept in abeyance for a period of about seven months cannot have any justification and reasons to fear that the petitioners anti-social activities could not be prevented otherwise then by immediate arrest may not exist. ( 12 ) I have already discussed above that nothing could have been mentioned in the detention order about the fact as regard to the admitted position that the petitioner was already acquitted as many as in five cases which have been made the grounds for detaining him and petitioner has also been availing the opportunity of bail in another rest four cases, which establishes itself a total non-application of mind of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the order of detention cannot be sustained and accordingly the order dated 14-3-2001 and 6-12-2001 are quashed. ( 14 ) THE application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Application allowed. --- *** --- .