Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 744 (PAT)

Shyamdeo Yadav v. State of Bihar

2013-07-03

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2013
ORDER The order of detention challenged before us is dated 21.01.2013 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad under Section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the State Government (Annexure-7) under Section 21 (1) read with Section 22 of the Act confirming the aforesaid order dated 21.01.2013 of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad detaining the petitioner till 20.01.2014. 2. The subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate of Jehanabad, who directed the detention of the petitioner, is based upon three criminal adventures of the petitioner i.e. Jehanabad (Karauna) P.S. Case No.516/2000, Pali P.S. Case No.64/11 and Pali P.S. Case No.50/11 and also Pali Police Station Sanha No.125/12 and 136/12. 3. The incidents themselves look rather serious but also stale having regard to the long gap between the occurrence and the order of detention. One should have expected some proximity in time to provide a rational nexus between the incidents relied on and the satisfaction arrived at. In a number of decisions, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that unexplained and long delay will be fatal to the plea of subjective satisfaction. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far Jehanabad (Karauna) P.S. Case No.516/2000 is concerned, the petitioner has already faced the trial vide Sessions Trial No.489/2005/50/2010 and the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the petitioner and he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 25.08.2012. He has further submitted that it appears that the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad is not correct. 5. The learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit and has defended the impugned orders, but could not controvert on the point of subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad. 6. It appears that the petitioner was arrested and is in custody since 21.11.2012 and there was no material before the District Magistrate, Jehanabad that the petitioner would be enlarged on bail and will be indulged in the activities in any manner against the public order. 7. A reference may be made to the decision in the case of Sk. Serajul Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1975 CRl.L.J.1328 and the decision in the case of Jagan Nath Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal reported in 1975 CRl. 7. A reference may be made to the decision in the case of Sk. Serajul Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1975 CRl.L.J.1328 and the decision in the case of Jagan Nath Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal reported in 1975 CRl. L.J. 1329 = AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1516. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of detention dated 21.01.2013 (Annexure-1) and 18.03.2013 (Annexure-7) and direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. 9. In the result, this application is allowed.