Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. (Oral)—By the present application in the nature of writ of habeas corpus the petitioner challenges his detention
under the provisions of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (for short the Act). The detention order was passed in Crime Control Case No. 01/16
by the District Magistrate, Purnea on 13.02.2016 while petitioner was in custody. The order of detention clearly stated that the petitioner was an
accused in two cases of the year 2016, he had been an accused in about 46 other criminal cases of grave nature spanning a period of over a
decade. In support of the writ petition several grounds have been urged :
(i) There are only two current cases and the rest are stale, thus, there is no justification for the petitioner being treated as a habitual offender within
the meaning of the Act.
(ii) It was urged that in terms of Section 19 of the Act the petitioner not having been produced before the Advisory Board within three weeks of
his detention, the detention is vitiated.
(iii) The Advisory Board under the Act was not communicated the petitioner''s representation.
2. Counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit and rejoinder thereof have been filed.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and with their consent are disposing of this application at this
stage itself.
4. So far as the first ground is concerned, suffice to say that the very fact that the petitioner has been made an accused in other 46 cases some of
which are for very serious offences including two cases in the year 2016 itself justifies the petitioner being treated as an antisocial element under the
Act. Thus, we cannot agree with the submission of the petitioner in this regard.
5. Now, we may take up the second issue i.e. petitioner was not produced before the Advisory Board within three weeks of the detention, we
may refer to Section 19 of the Act, which is quoted hereunder :
19. Reference to Advisory Board. - Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in every case where a detention order has been made
under this Act, the Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board
constituted by it under section 18, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by
the order, and in case where the order has been made by the District Magistrate mentioned in sub-section(2) of section 12 also the report by such
officer under sub-section(3) of that section.
6. Nowhere this Section makes it obligatory on the State to produce the detenue before the Advisory Board within three weeks. All it says is that
the matter has to be placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks. If the Advisory Board then considers it proper, it may, in terms of
Section 20 of the Act, call upon the State to produce the detenue before it. This matter has been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Raj Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in AIR 1990 Patna 32 wherein this specific issue had been raised in
respect of Section 19 of the Act itself and the Full Bench clearly held that it is not that the detenue has to be physically produced before the
Advisory Board within three weeks, rather the case has to be referred to the Advisory Board within three weeks.
7. In the present case, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit clearly shows that the case of petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board on
04.03.2016 whereas the detention order dated 13.02.2016 was served on the detenue in jail on 16.02.2016, therefore, it was well within the time
prescribed. We cannot, thus, accept the submission of the petitioner.
8. The third submission of the petitioner was with regard to his representation not having been placed before the Advisory Board. Nowhere in the
writ petition has it been stated by the petitioner that he ever made a representation to the Advisory Board. The reference to representation in
Section 19 of the Act could and would only mean representation to the Advisory Board. It may be noted that on 01.03.2016, petitioner having
been served with detention order dated 13.02.2016 on 16.02.2016, sent a representation to the State Government through the Jail
Superintendent. In due course the same was forwarded by the Jail Superintendent to the District Magistrate, Purnea, who on 09.03.2016
forwarded it to the State. The State considered the same and ultimately rejected the same by order dated 12.03.2016. In our opinion, this does
not reflect any undue delay in considering his representation. We may also observe that while this representation to the State was under
consideration his case had already been referred to the Advisory Board on 04.03.2016 itself and ultimately on 28.03.2016 the Advisory Board
also having asked for production of the petitioner in person and having heard him as also having examined the entire case records upheld his
detention.
Thus, this third ground is also not sustainable.
9. We have also taken note of the fact that there is no delay in disposal of the representation by the State. Thus, we find no merit in this application.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.