UNION OF INDIA Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Government Pleader No. 14 for the State.

(2.) THIS habeas corpus application is directed against order dated 25th May, 2006 passed by the District Magistrate, PLJRnea in exercise of his power under sec. 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act"), as contained in annexure 1, and also for consequential order approving the order of detention by the State Government.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no close proximity with the criminal activities of the detenu of the year 2004 with the order of detention passed in May 2006. Learned counsel also contended that in the order impugned the authorities apprehended release of the petitioner from the jail custody, and, therefore, it necessitated them to detain him preventing his activities in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, though there was no cogent material before the detaining authorities, on the basis of which the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. It is also submitted that in the cases, shown as backgrounds, the petitioner has got baill and has also been acquitted in some of the cases. In these backgrounds, learned counsel, therefore, contended that the order of detention passed against the petitioner would not be sustainable on stale grounds.