YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, challenging the detention order dated 3rd May, 2011 and confirmation order dated 12th May, 2011, submitted that he was detained by the order dated 3rd May, 2011, Annexure - 1, without assigning any reason as well as it is apparent from the order that there was no material facts before the authority, who passed the impugned order. It is also submitted that only copy of Annexure -1 was supplied to the writ petitioner and therefore, the grounds, as disclosed by the respondents in order annexed with the reply to the writ petition, were not known to the writ petitioner and as per the mandatory provision of section 17 of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, the grounds for detention are required to be served upon detenue and in view of the aforesaid reasons, both the order of detention, Annexure - 1, and the confirmation order, which has been passed mechanically on 12th May, 2011, deserve to be set aside. It is also submitted that even from the order of detention, which has been placed on record by the respondents along with the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the authority, which passed the order of detention under section 12(1) and 12-A of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, took into consideration absolutely non- existent as well as irrelevant facts and passed the order on apprehension that the petitioner, who is already in jail in connection with five criminal cases, may be released on bail and then he may commit same offence and such inference drawn by the authority is without any basis.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., 2012 1 JLJR 271, submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held therein that the apprehension that the detenue may be released on bail in earlier registered case itself cannot be the ground for passing the order of detention.