LAWS(PAT)-2017-5-77

ATMA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On May 10, 2017
Atma Yadav Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 23.07.2016 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua, exercising the power under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 and directing for detention of the petitioner for a period of one year and further challenging the order passed by the State Government on 08.09.2016 affirming the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua and detaining the petitioner under the aforesaid preventative detention Act for a period of one year till 19.07.2017, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Even though during the course of hearing by placing reliance of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 2015 (13)SCC 722, an argument was canvassed before us to say that the detention order cannot be passed for a period of one year and at one go it has to be passed maximum for a period of three months at one time and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sub-stained.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State invites our attention to various other judgments of this Court, namely, Roshan Kumar Thakur @ Roshan Thakur v. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary & Ors; 2016(2) PLJR (HC) 121 and another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar @ Pappu Sipahi @ Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors., passed in Cr. W.J.C. No. 1056 of 2014 decided on 20.01.2015 wherein after considering the case of Cherukuri Mani(supra) and placing reliance of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arun Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal AIR 1970(1)SCC 98, the principle laid down in the case of Cherupuri Mani(supra), has been distinguished. However, on account of the fact that we find the order of detention passed by the learned District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua to be vitiated in law on various other reasons, we keep the issue as detailed above open to be considered in a appropriate case as and when required.