JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 6163 of 2018 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for amending the prayer portion in the main application in view of subsequent development, by virtue of which, the order of preventive detention has further been extended from 10.7.2018 to 10.10.2018. 3. Since prayer made in this application is in continuation of the prayer made in the original application and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, this application is allowed. 4. Let I.A. No. 6163 of 2018 be treated as a part of the main application. W.P.(Cr) No. 181 of 2018 5. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 11.10.2017, passed by the learned District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, by which in exercise of the powers conferred under section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, an order of preventive detention has been passed against the petitioner. Petitioner has further challenged the decision of the Advisory Board, by which the detention order of the petitioner was approved. Petitioner has further challenged different orders of extension passed by the State Government, by which the order of preventive detention has been extended for a period of three months each. By virtue of I.A. No. 6163 of 2018 having been allowed by this Court, challenge has also been made to the order as contained in Memo No.5/C.C.A./01/73/2017-3537, by which the detention of the petitioner has further been extended till 10.10.2018. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier -2 by virtue of section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, an order of preventive detention was passed against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of six years and on expiry of the earlier order of preventive detention, by instituting false and frivolous cases by the police, a fresh order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, which has subsequently been extended by various orders and lastly by 3.7.2018. Learned counsel has referred to section 12(1) and Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 apart from Section 23 of the said Act by stating that if a fresh detention order is passed, the competent authority has to give appropriate reasons and since extended detention orders do not contain any reason, in view of section 23 of the Act, same deserve to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned J.C. to S.C. L & C., has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The first ground, which has been raised by the petitioner, is with respect to the reasons, which have to be given while passing a fresh order of detention, for which, he has referred to section 23 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. Before referring to section 23 of the said Act, it would be necessary to refer to section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 which reads as follows:- “Section 12 -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 can not 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, 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. 9. The proviso to sub section 12(2) of the Act clearly reveals that the State Government has jurisdiction to confer the powers of preventive detention to the District Magistrate, which shall be exercised for a period of three months and can be extended from time to time but not exceeding three months at any one time. The maximum period of detention has been indicated in section 22 of the Act, which states that an order of preventive detention can be in operation, which has been confirmed under section 21 for a period of 12 months from the date of detention. Section 23 of the Act deals with revocation of detention orders and sub section (2) reveals that such revocation or expiry of a detention order shall be no bar for making of a fresh detention order under section 12 against the same person where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry on which the State Government or an officer mentioned in sub section (2) of Section 12 is satisfied that such an order should be made. 10. In the present facts situation, Section 23 of the Act will not be applicable as the period of detention had been initially made for a period of three months, which has subsequently been extended thrice for a period of three months each. 10. In the present facts situation, Section 23 of the Act will not be applicable as the period of detention had been initially made for a period of three months, which has subsequently been extended thrice for a period of three months each. If such period is considered in the backdrop of section 22 of the Act, the State Government is not prevented from making a fresh extension to a detenu subject to the condition that a detention order can be operative for a maximum period of 12 months in terms of section 22 of the Act. Therefore, the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to providing fresh facts is misconceived. Since fresh facts had come to light, a fresh detention order was passed by the District Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, which was subsequently approved by the Advisory Board and after its affirmation, same has been extended thrice and the said orders are under challenge in the present writ application. 11. Adverting to the facts of the case, it appears that a recommendation was made by the S.S.P., Ranchi dated 16.9.2017 to the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Ranchi for passing an order of preventive detention against the petitioner. On the basis of the said recommendation, the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Ranchi had by order dated 11.10.2017 passed an order of preventive detention, which was approved by the State Government and after the same having been affirmed by the Advisory Board, the order of detention was once again approved by the State Government by order dated 27.11.2017. Subsequently, by various orders, the initial order of preventive detention was extended from time to time and lastly vide order dated 3.7.2018, the preventive detention was extended till 10.10.2018. Although reference of several cases have been made but some of the cases were the subject matters of the previous order of detention passed against the petitioner. However, when fresh facts have come to light which would necessitate the preventive detention of a person who is an anti-social element the State is not precluded from taking any coercive steps, as has been done in the present case, although the order of preventive detention contains earlier cases but some fresh facts have come to light, which reveal the involvement of the petitioner. In such circumstances, therefore, no illegality could be detected in either the order of the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Ranchi or in the order of the Advisory Board or for that matter the State Government which has approved the preventive order of detention against the petitioner. 12. In the circumstances, enumerated above, therefore, I am not inclined to accede to the prayer made in this writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.