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 ordered to be released by this Court on 7 October 1918. 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. Basantachandra Ghose on behalf of the detenu.

(2.) The material facts are the following, The petitioner Subodh Kumar Singh was arrested on 3l March, 1948, by an order of the District Magistrate of Muzaffarpur. On 24 (12th?) April 1948, an order of detention was passed against him by the provincial Government under Section 2(1)(a), Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947. On 12 (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 80 August 1948, the petitioner sent an application under Section 491, Criminal P.C., from jail. On this petition a rule was issued by this Court on 16 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 1918, and 1 October 1948 was fixed for hearing of the case. The case was actually heard on 7 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 7 October 1948, must also be stated here. In compliance with the rule issued by this Court, the District Magistrate sent the relevant papers on 25 September 1948. On 1 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 1 October 1948, counting from the date of the petitioner's arrest on 31 March 1948. On 80 September 1948, however, a fresh order of detention was passed against the petitioner. This fresh order of detention may be called the second order of detention for the sake of convenience. On 2 October, 1948, the petitioner filed another petition in which he raised the question that his detention on 1 October 1948, was illegal, inasmuch as the first order of detention had expired on 30 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 4 October 1948. But neither the second order of detention, nor the report of the Superintendent of the Central Jail Hazaribagh, dated 2 October, 1948, and received on 4 October 1948, were brought to the notice of this Court when it passed the order of release on 7 October 1948.

(3.) The order of release passed on 7 October 1948, was communicated to the District Magistrate on 10 October 1948. The District Magistrate sent the order of release to the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Hazaribagh, and the latter officer received the order of release on 14 October 1948. On that very date, the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Hazaribagh, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh enquiring as to what the effect of the order of release passed by this Court was, and if in face of the second order of detention the petitioner should still be detained. The Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh made a note on the letter of the Superintendent of the Central Jail to the following effect: The prisoner may be retained until farther orders of the Hon ble High Court or Government. The Collector, Muzafiarpur, may be informed. On the same date, the Superintendent of the Hazaribagh, Central Jail, forwarded a copy of his correspondence with the Deputy Commissioner to this Court, and asked for necessary orders by return of post. This was received by the office on 18 October 1948, and on 20 October 1948, this Court issued a rule on the Advocate-General. Three days after the issue of the rule on the Advocate-General, that is, on 23 October 1948, an order purporting to contain the grounds of detention as per the second order of detention, was made, and this was served on the petitioner on 24 October 1948, on which date the petitioner was also released. It is worthy of note that the grounds of detention as per the second order of detention were served only a short time before the release of the petitioner on the same date.