ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AC to AG. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.11.2012 passed by District Magistrate, Patna directing the petitioner to be kept under preventive detention as well as order dated 07.11.2012 passed by State Government approving the order dated 01.11.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna. 3. The Detaining Authority apart from taking into account the criminal antecedents of the petitioner formed his opinion and on being satisfied with the further grounds relating to involvement of the petitioner in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 57 of 2012 and Pandarak P.S. Case No. 58 of 2012, on being reported by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna passed order for detention of the petitioner in terms of Section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which subsequently found approved and confirmed in terms of Section 12(3), 21 read with 22 of the Act after report being submitted by the Advisory Board. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Detaining Authority had no cogent and valid grounds for being satisfied on a report submitted the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna because of the fact that on account of visibility of several pit-holes clear-cut impression is made and with regard to defective mode of process of satisfaction. It has further been submitted that without incorporating details, the Detaining Authority found himself to have duly complied with mandatory provision of law that petitioner is taking sincere efforts to get himself enlarged on bail. It has further been submitted that apart from the aforesaid infirmity persisting in the order impugned, there is inordinate delay in considering the representation of the petitioner which gives additional ground because of the fact that on this very score the Authorities concerned have flouted the mandate of Article-22 of the Constitution. 5. On the other hand, learned AC to AG, while justifying the order impugned, submitted that apart from the report of Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna an information was also conveyed at his end with regard to the status of the petitioner and further identifying as to in how many cases he had obtained bail and in how many cases he has applied for bail. Superintendent of Police, Patna an information was also conveyed at his end with regard to the status of the petitioner and further identifying as to in how many cases he had obtained bail and in how many cases he has applied for bail. Therefore, having the fact incorporated in the order that petitioner is eagerly pressing his plea for bail should not be considered mere an evasive note rather the same is based upon the definite information. It has further been submitted that there is no inordinate delay in disposing of representation of the petitioner rather the delay whatever counted for, have arisen on account of inter-departmental procedure as well as falling of holidays in between. 6. Submission of report is one thing and the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is another. From the contents of the report the Detaining Authority may satisfy himself or may not satisfy himself. The report in its independent capacity is non recognizable under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act. That happens to be the mode of placement of material before the Detaining Authority for the purpose of getting himself satisfied for passing of justifying detention order. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority has been held to be out of judicial purview but so far process thereof is concerned, that is within the ambit of scope of judicial scrutiny. There is no hitch, as stood decided by the Constitution Bench, that order of the preventive detention will also command against the detenu in spite of having under judicial custody. Whenever the process of satisfaction is subject to the adjudication, the order under challenge has to be scrutinized in order to appreciate that during course of satisfying itself, the Detaining Authority had complied with the requirement/ingredients formulated through judicial pronouncement time to time. In the case of Rekha v. State of T.N as reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 the Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 10 and 11 has held as follows:- 10. In the case of Rekha v. State of T.N as reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 the Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 10 and 11 has held as follows:- 10. In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in similar cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application number, whether the bail order was passed in respect of the co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the co-accused was on the same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it could be argued that there is likelihood of the accused being released on bail, because it is the normal practice of the most courts that if a co-accused has been granted bail and his case is on the same footing as that of the petitioner, then the petitioner is ordinarily granted bail. However, the respondent authority should have given details about the alleged bail order in similar cases, which has not been done in the present case. A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored. 11. In our opinion, the detention order in question only contains ipse dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility of the accused coming out on bail and there was no reliable material to this effect. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained. 7. Now coming to the order in hand, true it is that the report speaks like so detailing the activities of the petitioner and therefore, it was expected at the end of Detaining Authority to have those things incorporated in his order for the purpose of satisfying himself that petitioner had stepped forward in getting himself released on bail and on account thereof his presence was very much possible. Ignoring the same and substituting it mere mentioning that petitioner is taking sincere effort for getting himself released on bail, appears to be against the principle enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above. 8. Taking into account the totality of the event, the order impugned is found to be in utter violation of mandate of law, hence set aside. Petition is allowed. 9. Petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.