(1.) THE petitioner has been detained under preventive custody by the District Magistrate, Begusarai vide his order no. 2420 dated 27.8.2001 under section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (in short the Act). The detention has been approved under section 12(3) of the Act and later confirmed under section 21(1) read with section 22 of the Act by the State Government on 7.9.2001 and 17.10.2001 respectively. The petitioner seeks quashing of the aforesaid orders and his release.
(2.) IT is not necessary to set out the facts of the case except to mention that the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner along with the detention order itself on 29.8.2001. On 5.10.2001 the petitioner filed representation which according to him was rejected on 17.10.2001. In between his case was placed before Advisory Board. On 9.10.2001 the Adivsory Board gave its opinion in favour of the detention.
(3.) SHRI Pashupati Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that section 12 of the Act envisages detention of a person to prevent him from committing any act prejudicial to maintainability of public order. Though such detention depends on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, keeping in view the spirit of section 12 which envisages " immediate arrest" of the person to prevent him from committing any act prejudicial to maintenance of public order, such action must be taken in close proximity of events constituting the grounds of detention. In the instant case, the last of the three acts which formed the ground of detention was committed on 2,11.2000 i.e. ten months prior to the issuance of detention order and there is no explanation as to why the detention order was not passed soon after the act was committed. ance was placed on Jagan Nath Biswas V/s. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1516. Shri Sinha also submitted that there was delay in disposal of representation and on this ground alone further detention is liable to be quashed.