SUBODH SINGH Vs. PROVINCE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule was issued by a Bench of this Court in respect of a detenu who was order. ed to be released by this Court on 7th October 1948. A petition was received from the detenu, from jail, to the effect that in spite of the order of this Court he was not released. The rule was issued on receipt of this petition from the detenu. We have heard the learned Advocate -General on behalf of the Province of Bihar, and Mr. Basantaohandra Ghose on. behalf of the detenu.

(2.) THE material foots are the following. The petitioner Subbed Kumar Singh was arrested on Slat March 1948, by an order of the District Magistrate of Muzaffarpur. On 24th (12th?) April 1948, an order of detention was passed against him by the Provincial Government under section S (X)(a), Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947. On 12th (24th?) April 1948, the grounds of his detention were communicated to him under the provisions of Section 4, Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947. On 80th August 1948, the petitioner sent an application under Section 491, Cri -minal P. 0., from jail. On this petition a rule was issued by this Court on 16th September 1948. The rule, which was issued to the District Magistrate, directed the latter to show cause and send the relevant papers by 28th September 1948, and 1st October 1948 was fixed for hearing of the case. The case was actually heard on 7th October 1948, on which date this Court considered the legality or otherwise of the detention, and held that the petitioner was not being legally detained. This Court directed the release of the petitioner forthwith. But some events which happened previous to 7th October 1948, must also be stated here. In compliance with the rule issued by this Court, the District Magistrate sent the relevant papers on 25th September 1948. On 1st October 1948 the order of detention passed against the petitioner expired, because the period of six months for which the petitioner could be detained under the first order of detention expired on 1st October 1948, counting from the date of the petitioner's arrest on 3lat March 1948. On 30th September 1948, however, a fresh order of detention was passed against the pefcitionor. This fresh order of detention may be called the second order of detention for the sake of convenience. On 2nd October 1948, the petitionerfiled another petition in which he raised the question that his detention on 1st October 1948, was illegal, inasmuch as the first order of detention had expired on 30th September 1948. This petition of the prisoner, or at least a report about such a petition, from the Superintendent of the Central Jail Hazaribagh, appears to have been received by the office of this Court on 4th October 1948. But neither the second order of detention, nor the report of the Superintendent of the Central Jail Hazaribagh, dated 2nd October 1948, and received on 4th October 1948, were brought to the notice of this Court when it passed the order of release on 7th October 1018.

(3.) ON the facts stated above, three questions have been agitated before us. The first question is if the petitioner can still be detained after the order of release passed by this Court. That question is of no importance now, except so far as it is necessary to answer it for future guidance of the officers concerned, inasmuch as the petitioner was released on 24th October 1948, day before the case was Hated for bearing by this Court.