Judgment S.N.Jha and P.N.Yadav JJ. 1. has been detained under preventive custody under section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act (in short the Act) vide order dated 4.9.2000 of the District Magistrate, Saharsa. The detention was approved by the State Government under section 12(3) of the Act vide order dated 15.9.2000, and confirmed under section 22 read with section 21(1) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2001. By virtue of the said order the detention is to continue upto 13.11.2002 i.e. for one year from 14.11.2001 when he was arrested pursuant to the detention order. The petitioner seeks quashing of the abovesaid orders and his release from detention. 2. Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order was passed by the District Magistrate without any application of mind. He pointed out that the petitioner was detained on the premise that he was in jail custody in connection with a substantive criminal case and there was possibility of his release on bail. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner had been taken into custody in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 24 on 7.4.2000 but was released on bail on 15.5.2000 itself. Curiously, in the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, he was shown to be in custody on or about the date of the detention order and under that assumption the order was passed which shows complete non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Sri Singh also submitted that though the detention order was issued on 4.9.2000 the order was served on the petitioner only on 14.11.2001 and there is no explanation as to why the ground of detention could not be served on the petitioner during the intervening period of 14 months. He submitted that section 12(1) of the Act contemplates "immediate arrest" of the person so that unless he is detained, he may indulge in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The fact is that no case was instituted against the petitioner during the intervening period of 18 months between May 2000 and November 2001 when the order was served and, therefore, the detention must be held to be outside the scope of section 12 of the Act. Shri Singh further submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation. 3. Shri Singh further submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation. 3. As regards the grounds of detention Sri Singh submitted that the basis of detention is said to be three criminal cases against the petitioner being Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 41 dated 1.5.1999, Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 46 dated 18.5.1999 and Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 24 dated 7.4.2000. Apart from the fact that there is no proximity between the dates of the alleged occurrences and the order of detention, it would appear that Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 41 dated 1.5.1999 was instituted against unknown while in Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 46 the police submitted chargesheet under bailable sections viz. Sections 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, while Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 24 dated 7.4.2000 ended in compromise as the informant of the case admitted that he had filed the first information report under wrong impression. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the above submissions of the learned counsel are well founded. Though this Court does not sit in appeal over the satisfaction of the District Magistrate in making orders of detention while making judicial review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court is entitled to consider whether the detaining authority arrived at his satisfaction on relevant facts and after objective considerations. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not in custody on or about 4.9.2000. It is, therefore, not understandable as to how such statement was made in the detention order on the police report pursuant to which the order was issued. There is no explanation in the counter affidavit in this regard. The petitioner had already been granted bail in Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 24/2000 which is last of the three cases mentioned as ground of detention, on 15.5.2000 itself. There being no allegation of any overt act against the petitioner subsequent to his release on bail either before passing of the impugned order or its service on the petitioner i.e. during a period of one and a half years, we are unable to appreciate the bona fide of the detention order. There is also no explanation as to why the order could not be served for 14 months and that despite this gap of time, his detention was still considered to be essential. There is also no explanation as to why the order could not be served for 14 months and that despite this gap of time, his detention was still considered to be essential. Though this Court can not go into the adequacy of materials, in order to uphold the detention, the satisfaction of the detaining authority has to be shown as bona fide, based on objective consideration of relevant facts. 5. In the premises aforesaid, in the facts and circumstances, we are unable to uphold the order of detention which is accordingly quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed.