JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer: 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs: “a. Quashing the order of preventive detention dated 04.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 4 u/s. 12 (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act in terms of which the petitioner has been directed to be detained; b . For quashing of order dated 13.09.2024 passed under the signature of respondent no. 3 u/s. 12 (3) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act,2002 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act,2002) in terms of which the order dated 04.09.2024 has been approved; C. For quashing of order dated 21.10.2024 passed under the signature of the respondents no. 3 u/s. 21 (1) & 22 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act in terms of which the order dated 04.09.2024 has been confirmed; d. For quashing the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by under Secretary of State of Jharkhand extending the period of preventive detention up to 03.03.2025. e. For quashing the order dated 20.02.2025 extending the period of preventive detention up to 03.06.2025; e- I.For quashing the order dated 04.06.2025 extending the period of preventive detention up to 03.09.2025; f. Upon quashing the aforesaid orders be further pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith release him as the detention of the petitioner is illegal as it infringes the fundamental and statutory right of the petitioner; 2. During pendency of the writ petition, again the period of detention has been extended vide order dated 04.06.2025 up- to the period of 03.09.2025, which the petitioner has challenged by way of filing Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 7087 of 2025, which was allowed vide order dated 24th June, 2025. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was directed to file amended writ petition. Factual Aspect 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition reads as under: 4. The petitioner was served with a copy of the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the respondent No. 4 in terms of which the respondent No. 4 had passed detention order under Section 12 (2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 for a period of 12 days which was extendable up to 3 months subject to confirmation from the date of order. It is the case of the petitioner he was not provided the copy of the order dated 04.09.2024 rather the copy was provided to the petitioner on 14.09.2024 along with the order passed u/S. 12 (3) of the Act. Such infraction also makes the order dated04.09.2024 inoperative and void ab initio. 5. It is stated that the said order was passed upon the recommendation made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur on the ground that the petitioner is involved in various crimes. The basis upon which recommendation was made was cited as involvement of the petitioner in 03 Criminal cases and 07 such cases based upon SANHA. The petitioner has not been provided copies of the material upon which such recommendation was made. 6. Further case of the petitioner is that the respondents communicated a order dated 13.09.2024 in terms of which it was informed to the petitioner that the State Government has approved the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the State Government through the respondent no. 5, however, no receiving/acknowledgement of the same was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was told by the respondent no. 5 that the petitioner will get information about the same in due course. 7. Again, the respondents vide order dated 21.10.2024 informed the petitioner that in the opinion of Advisory Board, there is sufficient ground for detention of the petitioner and as such the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 21 (1) and 22 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act has been pleased to confirm the same. 8. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondents have taken into consideration 07 SANHA entries which have no legal or evidentiary value and as such the same cannot be basis for passing the order of preventive detention. 9. The petitioner has stated that it would be pertinent to state herein that on the basis of 03 criminal cases the order dated 04.09.2024 has been passed, out of which in all the three cases, he has been granted bail by the Court. 10. 9. The petitioner has stated that it would be pertinent to state herein that on the basis of 03 criminal cases the order dated 04.09.2024 has been passed, out of which in all the three cases, he has been granted bail by the Court. 10. Further it has been stated that the petitioner was in custody in the Bagbera P.S. Case No. 65/2024 and since the co-accused was granted bail there was likelihood of the petitioner being granted bail as his bail application was pending before this Hon'ble Court as such it has been alleged that in order to detain the petitioner illegally the impugned order has been passed. 11. Further, the respondents have vide order dated 29.11.2024 extended the period of preventive detention up to 03.03.2025. Thereafter, again detention has been extended vide order dated 20.02.2025 up to 03.06.2025. 12. Being aggrieved with the order of detention, the petitioner has approached this court. But during pendency of the writ petition, again the period of detention has been extended vide order dated 04.06.2025 up-to the period of 03.09.2025, which the petitioner has challenged by way of filing Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 7087 of 2025, which was allowed vide order dated 24 th June, 2025. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was directed to file amended writ petition. Submission on behalf of writ petitioner 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from bare perusal of the orders of extension it would be evident that the respondents did not apply their mind to the subsequent development of grant of bail to the petitioner. At the same time the respondents extended the order of preventive detention on inconsistent and unsustainable grounds. Therefore, the order of preventive detention passed against the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal, hence liable to be set aside. 14. Submission has been made that the order of detention passed against the petitioner is in breach of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed to him under the Constitution of India. 15. Further submission has been made that the representation preferred by the petitioner was denied to be considered by the respondent no. 5 and as such the order of preventive detention passed against the petitioner is illegal. The respondents have failed to disclose the grounds upon which they have formed an opinion that the petitioner ought to be detained. 15. Further submission has been made that the representation preferred by the petitioner was denied to be considered by the respondent no. 5 and as such the order of preventive detention passed against the petitioner is illegal. The respondents have failed to disclose the grounds upon which they have formed an opinion that the petitioner ought to be detained. The respondents have violated the right guaranteed to the petitioner detenu under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India by violating the right of not properly considering representation of the petitioner. 16. Submission has been made that copy of order of detention dated 04.09.2024 was not communicated to the petitioner and it was provided to the petitioner on 14.09.2024 along with the order passed under section 12(3) of the Act and further the representation of the petitioner was not decided. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the order of preventive detention is liable to be set aside as the respondent while passing the order of preventive detention has failed to consider that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail and his release would not be prejudicial in the public interest. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has relied upon the judgments delivered by the Apex Court in case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi devi versus State of Manipur and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618 ; State of Manipur and others versus Buyamayum Abdul Hanan alias Anand and others reported in (2022) 19 SCC 509 and Joyi Kitty Joseph versus Union of India and others , 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 298 Submission on behalf of respondents 19. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that the impugned order dated 04.09.2024, as contained in Memo No.312(A), has been passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum after perusal of the record and observing the provisions of law and after applying the judicious mind. 20. The order dated 13.09.2024 has been passed by the respondent no.3 Under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, and has rightly approved the detention order. Thereafter, order dated 21.10.2024 was communicated to the petitioner wherein petitioner was informed that in the opinion of the Advisory Board, there is sufficient ground for detention of the petitioner. 21. 20. The order dated 13.09.2024 has been passed by the respondent no.3 Under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, and has rightly approved the detention order. Thereafter, order dated 21.10.2024 was communicated to the petitioner wherein petitioner was informed that in the opinion of the Advisory Board, there is sufficient ground for detention of the petitioner. 21. Further, submission has been made that the petitioner has rightly been detained u/s 12 of the Jharkhand Control Act, 2002 since the District Magistrate has been vested with the power of detention under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002, as such detention order dated 04.09.2024 issued by the State Government is legal and sustainable in the eye of law. Thereafter, the period of detention has been extended and has been confirmed by the authorities concerned, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be released from the detention. 22. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been duly provided with the information regarding his representation and detention order by the authorities. However, the Hon?ble Supreme Court in K .M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader versus Union of India & Ors. and State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 476 has clearly held that the authority has no constitutional duty to consider the representation made by the detenue before the order of confirmation of the detention order. There is no constitutional mandate under clause (5) Article 22, much less any statutory requirement to consider the representation before confirming the order of detention. 23. In the case in hand preventive detention order has not been passed mechanically rather after perusing the records revealing the criminal activities and satisfying himself with this anticipation that the petitioner's detention is essential since he is detrimental to the public order and tranquility in the society. Thus, the grounds of the detention of the petitioner have been found to be decisive for the maintenance of the public order. 24. So far ground made by the petitioner that his fundamental legal rights under constitution of India has been violated, in this regard submission has been made that considering all the factual and legal aspects and conduct of past criminal activities of detenue, the detention order was passed which has been confirmed by the Respondent No. 2 and 3. 25. 24. So far ground made by the petitioner that his fundamental legal rights under constitution of India has been violated, in this regard submission has been made that considering all the factual and legal aspects and conduct of past criminal activities of detenue, the detention order was passed which has been confirmed by the Respondent No. 2 and 3. 25. Further submission has been made that 7 sanhas entries have been made in pursuance of the information received to the concerned police stations regarding the future criminal activities of the petitioner disturbing the public order and tranquility in the society, these sanha entries are in continuation of the past criminal conducts of the petitioner and this is also the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authorities passed by the Respondent 4. 26. So far acquittal or discharge or bail of the detenue is concerned, it is submitted that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that in spite of his continuous activities causing threat to maintenance of public order, the detenue was getting bail one after another and indulging in the same activities. In such circumstances, based on the relevant materials and satisfying itself, namely that it would not be possible to control his habituality in continuing the criminal activities by resorting the normal procedures, the Detaining Authority passed an order detaining the petitioner under the Act. 27. It is further submitted that an order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. It is taken by way of protection to prevent mischief to the community. The case lodged against the petitioner relates to commission of murder, attempt to commit murder and extortion. Such nature of offences comes under the chapter VI of BNS, 2023 read with XVI of IPC, which provides in section 2 and section 2(d)(i) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act,2002 that "anti-social elements" means person who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commits or abets the commission of offences punishable under chapter XVI or XVII of IPC read with chapter VI or XVII of BNS 2023. The petitioner is an anti- social element. The petitioner has been found to be a habitual offender also since 2 cases have been lodged continuously in the year 2023 and 2024. 28. The petitioner is an anti- social element. The petitioner has been found to be a habitual offender also since 2 cases have been lodged continuously in the year 2023 and 2024. 28. The detaining authority had anticipated on his subjective satisfaction regarding disturbing public order and tranquility, hence the preventive detention order was detained passed by the respondent against the petitioner. 29. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has observed that where individual liberty comes into conflict with the interest of society at large and public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interest of the society. The right to liberty of life is no doubt guaranteed to the petitioner but at the same time Article 22(3)(b) of the constitution permits preventive detention. In the instant case the petitioner has committed several criminal acts and he has created panic and havoc in the society. There is strong anticipation that the petitioner will be disturbing the public order in future. So being satisfied subjectively and objectively the detaining authority has passed the detention order, which requires no interference by this Court. 30. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon?ble Apex Court in case of D.M Nagaraja Versus Government of Karnataka and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 215 and Dropti Devi and Another versus Union of India and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 499 Analysis: 31. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order of detention as also the pleadings made on behalf of the petitioner and the State as available in the writ petitions and the counter affidavits. 32. The issues which require consideration herein are – (i) Whether representation of the petitioner was decided by the authority or not? (ii)Whether detention order dated 04.09.2024(Annexure-1) was not communicated to the petitioner and hence, violates section 17 of the Jharkhand Control of Crime Act,2002? (iii) Whether the criminal activities of petitioner comes under the purview of definition of „?Anti-social Elements?? as defined under section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002? 33. All the issues since are interlinked, as such, the issues are being taken up together for its consideration. But, before considering the said issues, the statutory provision as contained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes,2002 needs to be referred. as defined under section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002? 33. All the issues since are interlinked, as such, the issues are being taken up together for its consideration. But, before considering the said issues, the statutory provision as contained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes,2002 needs to be referred. The relevant provisions which require consideration are Sections 2 (d), 12, and 17 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes,2002, which are necessary to be referred herein. 34. “Anti-social Element” has been defined in section 2(d) of the Act,2002, which reads hereunder as: - 2(d) "Anti-social element" means a person who (i) either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code; or (ii) habitually commits or abets the commission of offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or (iii) who by words or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other grounds whatsoever, feelings of enmity or hatred between different religions, racial or language groups or castes or communities; or (iv) has been found habitually passing indecent remarks to, or teasing women or girls; or (v) who has been convicted of an offence under sections 25,26, 27, 28 or 29 of the Arms Act of 1959. 35. Further, Section 12 of the Act,2002 empowers the State Government to detain a person, which reads as under- 12. Power to make order detaining certain persons. - The State Government may- (1) 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, 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. 36. Section 17 of the Act,2002 stipulates that ground of orders of detention to be disclosed to the person affected by the order. Section 17 of the Act, 2002 reads as under- 17. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to person affected by the order. - (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose. 37. In the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions, the factual aspect of the present case is to be considered in order to consider the issue as formulated herein above. 38. But, before proceeding further it would be relevant to consider the judgment of the Hon?ble Apex Court regarding preventive detention under Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India. Hon?ble Apex Court has also taken into consideration the issue of detention and agreeing with the object of the preventive detention enactments, the law has been laid down that since the power to detain a person is snatching away the liberty as enshrined as a fundamental right under the Constitution and, as such, the said power is to be exercised with all care and circumspection so that there may not be any vice of malice or the arbitrary exercise on the part of the State to snatch away the personal liberty of an individual. 39. Here, it would be relevant to mention the judgment delivered by the Hon?ble Apex Court in case of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary Vs. State of Nagaland and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 502 , wherein Apex court at paragraph-2 has said that Preventive detention is a draconian measure whereby a person who has not been tried and convicted under a penal law can be detained and confined for a determinate period of time so as to curtail that person's anticipated criminal activities and this extreme mechanism is, however, sanctioned by Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India. 40. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, the petitioner has challenged the order of preventive detention dated 04.09.2024(Annexure-1) passed under section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crime Act,2002 by the respondent no.4 District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commisioner, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur and order dated 13.09.2024 passed under section 12(3) of the Act,2002 wherein order dated 04.09.2024 was approved and also the subsequent orders extending the period of detention. 41. Now, coming to the first issue that whether representation of the petitioner was decided by the authority. Submission has been made by the petitioner counsel that representation of the petitioner was not decided. 41. Now, coming to the first issue that whether representation of the petitioner was decided by the authority. Submission has been made by the petitioner counsel that representation of the petitioner was not decided. In this regard, we find that at paragraph-9 of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that he had submitted representation to the State Government through respondent no. 5 on 21.10.2024, however, no receiving/acknowledgement of the same was provided to the petitioner. 42. Further it needs to refer herein that the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of K .M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader versus Union of India & Ors. and State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra) has categorically held that the authority has no constitutional duty to consider the representation made by the detenue before the order of confirmation of the detention order. There is no constitutional mandate under clause (5) Article 22, much less any statutory requirement to consider the representation before confirming the order of detention. 43. Hence, it is the own admission of the petitioner that receiving/acknowledgement of the representation was not provided to the petitioner meaning thereby that petitioner himself has failed to prove that he had submitted representation to the State Government through respondent no. 5 on 21.10.2024. If respondent no. 5 Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka had not given the receiving/acknowledgement of the representation filed by the petitioner, then petitioner could have addressed his grievance to the higher Government officials. But, the petitioner has not done so and in the writ petition he has levelled bald allegation of not providing the receiving/acknowledgement of his representation. 44. Hence, when the factual basis of filing the representation has not been proved by the petitioner, therefore, the question of deciding the representation does not arise. 45. Now, reverting to the second issue i.e. whether detention order dated 04.09.2024(Annexure-1) was not communicated to the petitioner and hence, violates section 17 of the Jharkhand Control of Crime Act,2002. 44. Hence, when the factual basis of filing the representation has not been proved by the petitioner, therefore, the question of deciding the representation does not arise. 45. Now, reverting to the second issue i.e. whether detention order dated 04.09.2024(Annexure-1) was not communicated to the petitioner and hence, violates section 17 of the Jharkhand Control of Crime Act,2002. Section 17 of the Act stipulates that grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to person affected by the order wherein it is provided that authority making the detention order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days from the date of detention, communicate to detune the grounds on which the order has been made. 46. Hence, as per section 17 of the Act, aforesaid detention order has to be communicated to the detune from the date of detention which is ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than ten days. 47. But, in the case in hand on perusal of detention order04.09.2024(Annexure-1), we find that respondent no.4 District Magistrate, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, who had issued the detention order, has in the detention order itself ordered that copy of the aforesaid detention order be forwarded to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ghaghidih, to be made available to the petitioner, for compliance of section 17 of the Act. 48. Hence, on the date of issue of detention order dated04.09.2024, petitioner was locked in Central Jail, Ghaghidih, which is apparent from the detention order itself. Under section 17 of the Act, detention order has to be communicated to the detune from the „date of detention? whereas in the present case, before the issuance of detention order dated 04.09.2024, petitioner was locked in Central Jail, Ghaghidih. 49. Hence, it cannot be said that section 17 of the Act was violated because on the date of passing of the detention order dated 04.09.2024, petitioner was already locked in jail whereas section 17 requires that detention order has to be communicated to the detune from the date of detention. Hence, this court is of the view that there is no violation of section 17 of the Act,2002 as alleged. 50. Hence, this court is of the view that there is no violation of section 17 of the Act,2002 as alleged. 50. Now, the third issue whether the criminal activities of petitioner come under the purview of definition of "?Anti- social Elements?? as defined under section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. In this regard we find that power to make orders detaining certain persons are provided in section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. Section 12 (1) provides that if State Government is 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. 51. Hence, section 12(1) empowers the State Government to detain anti-social element if there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person. The anti-social element has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 and section 2(d)(i) of the Act provides that “Anti-social element” means a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of gang habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. 52. On going through the detention order dated04.09.2024(Annexure-1), we find that detention order dated 04.09.2024 was passed by the respondent no.4 District Magistrate, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur on the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, had recommended proposal wherein involvement of the petitioner in three criminal cases and seven cases based on sanha is mentioned. 53. We find that various cases have been registered against the petitioner in the district of East Singhbhum in Bagbera P.S., GRP Tata Nagar P.S. and Sakchi police station. Bagbera P.S. Case No. 65/2024 dated 02.05.2024 was registered under section 307/120B/34 of IPC and 27 Arms Act; GRP Tata Nagar P.S. case No.36/20203 dated 15.05.2023 was registered under section 341/323/385/387/34 of IPC and Sakchi P.S. case No. 235 of 2017 dated 10.12.1017 was registered under sections 302/34 and 27 Arms Act. Bagbera P.S. Case No. 65/2024 dated 02.05.2024 was registered under section 307/120B/34 of IPC and 27 Arms Act; GRP Tata Nagar P.S. case No.36/20203 dated 15.05.2023 was registered under section 341/323/385/387/34 of IPC and Sakchi P.S. case No. 235 of 2017 dated 10.12.1017 was registered under sections 302/34 and 27 Arms Act. Apart from these three FIRs, in as many as seven cases based upon sanha, there is involvement of the petitioner. 54. On perusal of the FIRs registered against the petitioner, we find that among the three FIRs, the oldest FIR is of the year 2017 and was registered under section 302 of IPC and section 27 of Arms Act. Thereafter, next FIR is of the year 2023 registered under section 325/385/387 of IPC and other sections of IPC. The latest FIR is of the year 2024 which was registered under sections 307/120B/34 of IPC and section 27 of Arms Act. 55. The question of subjective satisfaction has also been taken as the ground of non-consideration of order of bail passed by the court of law. The ground of bail cannot be said to effect the decision taken by the competent authority of detention rather the accusation so made in the First Information Report is to be seen for the purpose to have the subjective satisfaction of the nature of accusation made in the said FIR. Since the detention order is to be passed by the competent authority anticipating the criminality of the concerned and it would be evident from the accusation made in the paragraph-13 of the writ petition wherein three pending criminal cases against the petitioner has been mentioned, as has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph, wherein he is on bail, but, whatever allegation has been made against the writ petitioner that is of serious in nature. 56. The consideration of coming from judicial custody by virtue of order passed by the court to release on bail has been taken into consideration by the Hon?ble Apex Court in D.M. Nagaraja (supra) case, wherein detenue had challenged his detention order. The Hon?ble Apex Court in this case had noted in paragraph-17 that the even after release on bail detenue again started indulging in the same type of offences, particularly, threatening the public life, damaging public property, etc and hence, detenue appeal was dismissed. The Hon?ble Apex Court in this case had noted in paragraph-17 that the even after release on bail detenue again started indulging in the same type of offences, particularly, threatening the public life, damaging public property, etc and hence, detenue appeal was dismissed. Further in paragraph-20 of this judgment Hon?ble Apex Court had noted the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order against the detenue. Paragraph-17 and 20 of D.M. Nagaraja(supra) case is quoted herein below for the ready reference- “17. All the abovementioned details which have been correctly stated in the detention order clearly show that the appellant is not amenable to ordinary course of law. It also shows that even after his release on bail from the prison on various occasions, he again started indulging in the same type of offences, particularly, threatening the public life, damaging public property, etc. All these aspects have been meticulously considered by the detaining authority and after finding that in order to maintain public order, since his activities are prejudicial to the public, causing harm and danger, the detaining authority detained him as “goonda” under Karnataka Act 12 of 1985 for a period of 12 months and the same was rightly approved by the Advisory Board and the State Government. Inasmuch as the detaining authority has taken note of all the relevant materials and strictly followed all the safeguards as provided in the Act ensuring the liberty of the detenue, we are in entire agreement with the decision of the detaining authority as well as the impugned order of the High Court affirming the same.” x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x “20. In the case on hand, we have already extracted criminality, criminal activities starting from the age of 30 and details relating to eleven cases mentioned in the grounds of detention. It is not in dispute that in one case he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine years. He had been acquitted in two cases and four cases are pending against him wherein he was granted bail by the courts. It is not in dispute that in one case he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine years. He had been acquitted in two cases and four cases are pending against him wherein he was granted bail by the courts. It is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that in spite of his continuous activities causing threat to maintenance of public order, he was getting bail one after another and indulging in the same activities. In such circumstances, based on the relevant materials and satisfying itself, namely, that it would not be possible to control his habituality in continuing the criminal activities by resorting to normal procedure, the detaining authority passed an order detaining him under Act 12 of 1985.” 57. Hence, from the FIRs mentioned in the detention order dated 04.09.2024(Annexure-1), it is clear that crime committed by the petitioner ranges to murder, attempt to murder, extortion etc. and the cases under Arms Act has also been registered against the petitioner. Thus, petitioner habitually commits offences punishable under section Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code as defined in section 2(d)(i) of the Act. 58. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid factual aspect is of the view that there is no violation of Section 17 and from the records it appears that the petitioner has come under the purview of definition of „’Anti-social Element’’ as defined under section 2(d)(i) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. The detaining authority respondent no.4 while passing the detention order 04.09.2024(Annexure-1), under section 12 of the Act was satisfied that petitioner if released from jail will act in manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 59. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the orders of detention need no interference. 60. Accordingly, the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 4, order dated 13.09.2024 and order dated 21.10.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 and the subsequent orders dated 29.11.2024, 20.02.2025 and 04.06.2025 extending the period of preventive detention are sustained and upheld. 61. The writ petition stands dismissed. 62. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands dispose of.