ORDER ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AC to AG for the State. 2. On account of having chequered history of the petitioner and further apprehending in the aforesaid background that after release the petitioner might indulge in such kind of nefarious activities jeopardizing the public safety in terms of Section-12 (2) of the Bihar Control of the Crimes Act, 1981 (in short ‘the Act’ in future references) the District Magistrate, Samastipur has ordered to detain the petitioner vide order dated 28.06.2012 which was subsequently found to be approved at the end of the State Government vide order dated 05.07.2012. 3. After having the nod from Advisory Board, the aforesaid order was confirmed by the State Government on 31.07.2012. 3. After going through the order dated 28.06.2012, the initial order passed by the District Magistrate, Samastipur, it is evident that he exercised the power by having it delegated to him in terms of Sub-Section-2 of Section 12 of the Act by the State Government vide Notification No. 2831/8(P) dated 26.03.2012. As per Sub-Section-2 of Section 12 of the Act the delegation of power is found to be effective and valid at the first instance for a period of three months only subject to extension for another three months. For better appreciation, Section-12 of the Act is incorporated here-in-below:- Power to make order detaining certain persons. – (1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained. (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may by an order in writing direct. (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may by an order in writing direct. that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) exercise the powers conferred upon by the said sub-section: Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time. (3) When any order is made by District Magistrate, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after the making thereof unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. Provided that where under section 17 the grounds of detention are communicated by the officer making the order after five days but not later than ten days from the date of detention, this sub-section shall apply subject to the modification that, for the words “twelve days”, the words “fifteen days” shall be substituted. 4. Admittedly, the order impugned is dated 28.06.2012. The delegation of power was vide order dated 26.03.2012. That means to say that the delegation was cognizable up to three months from the date of delegation of power i.e. dated 26.03.2012. After having the period calculated, it is crystal clear that the order impugned has been passed after overlapping the aforesaid period of three months. Therefore, at a glance, it appears to be non est in the eye of law in terms of Section 12 (2) of the Act. 5. Consequent thereupon, the successive order dated 28.06.2012, the date of initial preventive detention, order dated 05.07.2012, the date of approval, order dated 31.07.2012 the date of confirmation are set aside. The petition is allowed. 6. Therefore, at a glance, it appears to be non est in the eye of law in terms of Section 12 (2) of the Act. 5. Consequent thereupon, the successive order dated 28.06.2012, the date of initial preventive detention, order dated 05.07.2012, the date of approval, order dated 31.07.2012 the date of confirmation are set aside. The petition is allowed. 6. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.