JUDGMENT By Court-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed under Section 12(1) & (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 dated 17th October, 2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities relied upon five cases and petitioner has already been acquitted in three cases , out of five cases, and in two cases petitioner has been granted bail. It is also submitted that the order was passed on extraneous consideration of fact, which is apparent from the order itself as the authority considered about 34 cases and alleged that the petitioner's gang members were involved in those 34 cases, thereby the authority virtually held petitioner vicariously liable even in criminal cases, which is just contrary to the settled law that there cannot be vicarious criminal liability. It is also submitted that it appears that the authorities were impressed by the list of large number of cases provided to them and, therefore, passed that order. It is also stated that the authorities have also taken into consideration, even some reports recorded in the police station diary dated 22nd August, 2010 and 21st August, 2010, wherein it has been entered that the petitioner is involved in demanding ransom while he was in jail. It is further submitted that if the police authorities found the petitioner's involvement in demanding the ransom while he was in jail then they should have lodged the criminal case against the petitioner and without lodging criminal case how they can proceed to take a decision to detain the petitioner behind the bars. 4. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case. The petitioner was involved in five criminal cases and so far the involvement of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is concerned, this fact cannot be disputed. However, out of five cases, petitioner has been acquitted in three cases and in two cases, the petitioner has been granted bail. 5. The petitioner was involved in five criminal cases and so far the involvement of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is concerned, this fact cannot be disputed. However, out of five cases, petitioner has been acquitted in three cases and in two cases, the petitioner has been granted bail. 5. Control of Crimes Act is not an Act , wherein one is held guilty in criminal case but is a provision, provided for taking measure to deal with the anti-social elements as well as the persons who are threat to the public order and, therefore, the satisfaction of the authority, if material, is found based on such material then even if there is no detail mention of the fact of petitioner's acquittal in three cases and grant of bail in two cases itself cannot be a ground for setting aside the order. It is well known that in a case of gang operation, there is every possibility that sufficient evidence may not be collected against the particular person and, therefore, he may not be proceeded for criminal trial. 6. Since all these issues have been taken into consideration in passing the order impugned under the Crimes Control Act, we do not find that High Court should sit in appeal while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to examine the detail fact in such minute manner, when involvement of the person in the crime is apparent. 7. In view of the above observations, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.