JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: “That by way of the instant writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the order as contained in CCA no 1/2025-2026 dated 01/09/2025 passed by the Learned deputy commissioner cum District Magistrate, Palamu by which the detention order passed under section 12(II) of Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002 has been extended till 4/12/2025 (Impugned order) and declare the detention of the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional.; AND The petitioner further prays for quashing the order as contained in CCA no 1/2025-2026 dated 18/07/2025 passed by the Learned under Secretary Home prison and disaster management department by order dated 18/7/25 no 05/CCA/01/38/2025-256-CCA since the advisory council has expressed the opining that there exits sufficient ground for detaining the petitioner under the Jharkhand crime control act 2002, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under section 21(1) and section 22 of the Jharkhand crime control act 2002, the state government confirmed detention order passed by district magistrate palamu dated 5/6/25, under section 12(II) of the Jharkhand crime control act, 2002 in case no 01/2025-26, which pertains to the detention of the said criminal under provisions of the act. Accordingly under the Jharkhand crime control act 2002, the aid criminal shall remain in detention for a period of 3 months from the date of the detention order ie from 5/6/25 to 4/9/25 by the order of the governor of Jharkhand undersecretary to the government, the copy of said order was communicated to the superintendent central jail MedliNagar Palamu for service of detention order of the detaining, copy of the deputy commissioner and superintendent of police palmu for information and necessary actions. Further the deputy commissioner cum district magistrate palamu was requested to ensure that the proposal of extension of detention period against the said criminal is submitted to the department through special messenger at least 15 days before the expiry of the present detention period.” Factual Aspect 2. The factual aspect which has been pleaded in the writ petition are as follows: i. The petitioner was made an accused in several cases which led the respondents to initiate the proceeding under section 12(2) of Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002. ii. The factual aspect which has been pleaded in the writ petition are as follows: i. The petitioner was made an accused in several cases which led the respondents to initiate the proceeding under section 12(2) of Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002. ii. The police inspector-cum-officer-in-charge Town Police Station, Palamu vide letter no.1591/2025 dated 15.05.2025 addressed to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Medininagar proposed for initiation of proceeding under CCA in terms of section 12(2) mentioning therein that the petitioner is a professional criminal indulged in cases of murder, extortion, Arms Act and charged sheeted in 10 cases lodged in Palamu was mentioned. The petitioner is in habit of terrorizing the contractors, managing tenders and taking illegal possession of land. The petitioner was made accused in Town PS case No. 33/2025 and was in custody and there is every likelihood that after being released on bail, he will be indulged in similar type of activities. Two sanhas were also lodged as Town P.S sanha No. 28/25 dated 5.01.2025 and Town P.S sanha No. 34/2025 dated 25.01.2025. Hence, it was requested to initiate the proceeding under section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002. iii. The Sub-Divisional Polic Officer, Sadar, Madininagar vide memo no. 874 dated 18.05.2025 made representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu through the superintendent Of Police, Palamu, and requested for taking action to detain the notorious criminal (petitioner) under section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002. iv. In the representation it was stated that the petitioner is an active member of Sujit Sinha gang (a notorious criminal) and is presently in judicial custody. Numerous criminal cases are registered against him in different police station of Palamu district. He has been involved in intimidating contractors, managing tenders through threats and illegal land grabbing activities. He is confined in judicial custody in Case No. 33/2025 and if released, he is likely to rejoin his associates and resume intimidating contractors for tender management and land grabbing. His presence outside will create an atmosphere of fear and terror among contractors and businessmen. In the representation ten criminal cases registered against the petitioner was mentioned. Therefore, on the ground of maintenance of public order and peace, it is necessary to detain the petitioner under section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, so that he may not secure bail. v. The Superintendent of Police, Palamu, vide letter no. In the representation ten criminal cases registered against the petitioner was mentioned. Therefore, on the ground of maintenance of public order and peace, it is necessary to detain the petitioner under section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, so that he may not secure bail. v. The Superintendent of Police, Palamu, vide letter no. 265/DCB dated 20.05.2025 and letter no. 278/DCB dated 04.06.2025, sent proposal to Deputy Commissioner, Palamu to detain the petitioner under section 12(2) of Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, giving reference that the petitioner is the notorious criminal and is an active member of Sujit Sinha gang and a professional criminal and several cases are registered against him in various police stations in Palamu District. Petitioner is engaged in extortion and land grabbing and his regular conduct has been threatening and terrorizing people. Currently, he is in custody in connection with Case No. 33/ 2025. However, upon release, he may again, along with his associates, threaten and intimidate contractors for tender management and land grabbing. His presence outside creates an atmosphere of fear and terror among contractors and businessmen. vi. Pursuant to letter no. 265/DCB dated 20.05.2025 and letter no. 278/DCB dated 04.06.2025, of the Superintendent of Police, Palamu, learned Court of Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Palamu, initiated a proceeding under Jharkhand Control of Crime Act, 2002, by registering a case as CCA Case No. 01/2025-26 and passed an order of detention dated 05.06.2025(Annexure-5/1) against the petitioner under Section 12(2) of Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002.The detention order was passed for a period of three month, i.e., till 04.09.2025. vii. The copy of the detention order along with the charge sheet and related documents was ordered to be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Medini Nagar, Palamu for service of detention order upon the detenue and he was directed to submit the report of the service of the order to the Court by post so that the same may be forwarded to the Government for approval. viii. Thereafter, order dated 18.07.2025, was passed by the Under Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 05/CCA/01/38/2025- 256/CCA, confirming the detention order of the petitioner and specifying that the petitioner has been detained for 03 months starting from 05.06.2025 till 04.09.2025. ix. viii. Thereafter, order dated 18.07.2025, was passed by the Under Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 05/CCA/01/38/2025- 256/CCA, confirming the detention order of the petitioner and specifying that the petitioner has been detained for 03 months starting from 05.06.2025 till 04.09.2025. ix. On 14.08.2025 a report was submitted by the Sub-Inspector Police, Town PS, Palamu, who has lodged a sanha mentioning therein that on secret information, it reveals that the petitioner is engaged in various criminal activities and he is an active member of Sujit Sinha gang and if he would be released on bail, there is possibility that he would again involve in criminal activities like robbery, extortion of money, kidnapping, murder etc. and due to that there is an atmosphere of fear among the people. x. Then Sub-Divisional Polic Officer, Sadar, Madininagar, vide letter no. 1685/Anu dated 29.08.2025 made representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, through the Superintendent of Police, Palamu, and requested for extension of detention period of the petitioner under section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002. xi. Thereafter, Superintendent of Police, Palamu, vide letter no. 483/DCB dated 30.08.2025, submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu for extension of detention period of the petitioner under section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, in the light of the recommendation made by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Palamu vide letter no. 1685/Anu dated 29.08.2025. xii. In the light of the recommendation of Superintendent of Police, Palamu, in letter no. 483/DCB dated 30.08.2025, the District Magistrate, Palamu, by order dated 01.09.2025(Annexure-10) passed an order in CCA Case No. 01/2025-26 wherein under Section 12(2) of Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, the detention of the petitioner was extended for a further period of three month from 05.09.2025 till 04.12.2025. 3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of detention and orders of extension of detention, the present writ petition has been preferred. Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner: 4. Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order: i. It has been contended that the petitioner has been illegally detained on the false allegation as the impugned order has been passed by the same authority without any addition of any criminal case. ii. Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order: i. It has been contended that the petitioner has been illegally detained on the false allegation as the impugned order has been passed by the same authority without any addition of any criminal case. ii. It has been contended that the act of the respondents in passing the impugned order under the provisions of section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act is improper use of Delegated Authority beyond three months [Section 12(2) of Jharkhand Crime Control Act,2002], that the delegation of power under Section 12(2) is valid only for three months, and unless re-delegated by fresh notification, the District Magistrate's extension of the detention beyond that period is ultra vires. The use of stale or lapsed delegation renders the continued detention illegal. iii. It has been contended that the detention order is based upon non-application of mind by detaining authority as it acted mechanically under a delegated notification in violation of the settled law as laid down in the case of Jitendra Korwa v. State of Jharkhand; 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 2618 which emphasized the need for reasoned satisfaction before issuing or extending detention order. iv. It has been contended that the act of the respondents in passing the impugned order under the provisions of section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act is violation of Article 22-failure to communicate grounds or permit representation, the petitioner was not furnished with adequate grounds of detention in a language he understands, nor given an effective opportunity to make a representation, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. v. It has been contended that the act of the respondents in passing the impugned order under the provisions of section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, is without any application of mind. A mere reference to criminal cases registered against the petitioner, without any independent analysis or assessment of their relevance to public order, demonstrates a non-application of mind. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand has held in cases of “ Jitendra Karwa vs. State of Jharkhand ” ( supra) that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution. vi. It has been contended that the impugned detention order gives absolutely no finding with respect to the present petitioner being an anti-social element. vii. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand has held in cases of “ Jitendra Karwa vs. State of Jharkhand ” ( supra) that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution. vi. It has been contended that the impugned detention order gives absolutely no finding with respect to the present petitioner being an anti-social element. vii. It has been contended that the term 'anti-social element' has a specific meaning and has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. The inclusion of the petitioner within the scope of anti-social element mandates him habitually committing certain offences. viii. It has been contended that according to the provision under section 12(2), it is mandatory to record the reason, same is evidentially missing in the present case. As such, the order of detention has been passed without following the due procedure of law. ix. It has been contended that it is evident that before extending the period of detention the case of the petitioner has not been placed/referred as per section 19 of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002 before the Advisory Board. x. It has been contended that the act of the respondents in passing the impugned order under the provisions of section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, has not taken into consideration that in most of the pending cases, petitioner has been granted bail and in one of the cases he has been acquitted and further he has not committed any recent criminal act that justifies preventive detention. The detention amounts to punitive, not preventive, action which is impermissible under preventive detention jurisprudence. xi. It has been contended that the act of the respondents in passing the impugned order under the provisions of section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act is, is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law as detention is based on Station Diary Entries (Sanhas) as well as FIR. xii. It has been contended that no valid reason has been shown for non-compliance with safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution, including, timely communication of grounds of detention, opportunity to make representation, consideration of less restrictive alternatives etc. which are lacking in the present case. xiii. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, needs interference by this Court. Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State: 5. which are lacking in the present case. xiii. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, needs interference by this Court. Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State: 5. Per contra, the learned AC to AAG-III appearing for the respondent-State to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds: i. It has been contended that the impugned detention order is issued under the provision of section 12(2) of Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002 as the petitioner is involved in ten criminal cases as well as two sanhas were registered against him in police stations of Palamu District specially for collection of extortion, robbery, kidnapping, snatching, beating and creating obstruction in government work and other criminal activities and, as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable in the law as well as on facts. ii. It has been contended that prior to issuance of detention order the petitioner has been given reasonable opportunity to defend himself and, as such, the orders impugned is in accordance with law which requires no interference. iii. It has been contended that although the petitioner has been granted bail in some cases but by taking into consideration that the petitioner is habitual offender, the orders of extension of detention has been passed and further there is strong possibility of conviction of the petitioner in the said cases. iv. It has further been contended that there is possibility that when the petitioner comes out from the detention he may involve in the illegal and unlawful activity with his associates, since he has been history of antecedent, thus, the detention order is fully justified in order to maintain public order within the district concerned. v. It has been contended that it was necessary to extend preventive detention of petitioner in order to control organized crime in the locality as well as in order to reduce the intensity of same. vi. It has been contended that the impugned order of detention was extended from 05.09.2025 to 04.12.2025. The present petitioner is involved in various illegal and criminal activities which is evident from the institution of various FIRs and sanhas against him. viii. vi. It has been contended that the impugned order of detention was extended from 05.09.2025 to 04.12.2025. The present petitioner is involved in various illegal and criminal activities which is evident from the institution of various FIRs and sanhas against him. viii. It has been contended that at first occasion detention order was confirmed after obtaining report from Advisory Board and thereafter on requisition given by the competent authority the same has been extended for further period of three months i.e. 05.09.2025 to 04.12.2025 in accordance with provision laid down under section 21(1) and section 22 of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. 6. The learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned orders, thus, need no interference and the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Analysis: 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition along with the relevant documents annexed therewith. 8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect the following issues require consideration herein: i. Whether the criminal activities of petitioner come under the purview of definition of ‘’Anti-social Elements’’ as defined under section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002? ii. Whether the approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention? iii. Whether grant of bail to the petitioner in most of the cases is ground for his release from the prevention detention passed under 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002? Re: First issue 9. But, before considering the first issues, the statutory provision as contained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 needs to be referred herein. 10. The relevant provisions which require consideration herein are Section 2(d) and Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes, 2002, (referred herein as Act 2002). 11. Re: First issue 9. But, before considering the first issues, the statutory provision as contained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 needs to be referred herein. 10. The relevant provisions which require consideration herein are Section 2(d) and Section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes, 2002, (referred herein as Act 2002). 11. “Anti-social Element” has been defined in section 2(d) of the Act,2002, which reads hereunder as: - “2(d) Anti-social element" means a person who- (i) either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code; or (ii) habitually commits or abets the commission of offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or (iii) who by words or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other grounds whatsoever, feelings of enmity or hatred between different religions, racial or language groups or castes or communities; or (iv) has been found habitually passing indecent remarks to, or teasing women or girls; or (v) who has been convicted of an offence under sections 25, 26, 27, 28 or 29 of the Arms Act of 1959.” 12. From perusal of Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, it is evident that "anti-social element" is a person who habitually commits or abets offenses listed in Chapters XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or certain other specific crimes. It needs to refer herein that this definition requires a pattern of behaviour, not isolated incidents, and aims to identify individuals whose acts cause alarm or terror among the public, warranting preventive detention to maintain public order. 13. It requires to refer herein that the Act 2002 was meant to make special provisions for the control and suppression of anti-social elements with a view to maintenance of public order. It also needs to refer herein that the “Law and order” problems typically affect only individuals or small groups, whereas “public order” disruptions affect the community’s normal functioning on a broader scale often generating fear or anxiety among the general public. 14. It is pertinent to mention herein that the primary element with respect to Section 2(d)(i) seems to be the word "habitual". 14. It is pertinent to mention herein that the primary element with respect to Section 2(d)(i) seems to be the word "habitual". It would thus mean that a person who is frequently engaged in committing or attempting or abating commission of an offence in terms of Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code would be an anti-social element. In this context, we may refer to the case of Vijay Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1984) 3 SCC 14 wherein the word "habitually" has been sought to be enumerated in the following manner: "31. It is seen from Section 12 of the Act that it makes provision for the detention of an anti-social element. If a person is not an antisocial element, he cannot be detained under the Act. The detaining authority should, therefore, be satisfied that the person against whom an order is made under Section 12 of the Act is an anti-social element as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. Sub- clauses (ii), (iii) and (v) of Section 2(d) of the Act which are not quite relevant for the purposes of this case may be omitted from consideration for the present. The two other sub-clauses which need to be examined closely are sub clauses (i) and (iv) of Section 2(d). Under sub-clause (i) of Section 2(d) of the Act, a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI dealing with offences affecting the human body or Chapter XVII dealing with offences against property, of the Penal Code, 1860 is considered to be an anti-social element. Under subclause (iv) of Section 2(d) of the Act, a person who has been habitually passing indecent remarks to, or teasing women or girls, is an anti-social element. In both these sub clauses, the word "habitually" is used. The expression "habitually" means "repeatedly" or "persistently". It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit. It connotes frequent commission of acts or omissions of the same kind referred to in each of the said sub clauses or an aggregate of similar acts or omissions. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit. It connotes frequent commission of acts or omissions of the same kind referred to in each of the said sub clauses or an aggregate of similar acts or omissions. This appears to be clear from the use of the word "habitually" separately in subclause (i), sub-clause (ii) and sub- clause (iv) of Section 2(d) and not in sub clauses (iii) and (v) of Section 2(d). If the State Legislature had intended that a commission of two or more acts or omissions referred to in any of the sub- clauses (i) to (v) of Section 2(d) was sufficient to make a person an "anti-social element", the definition would have run as "Anti-social element" means "a person who habitually is. ..". As Section 2(d) of the Act now stands, whereas under sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (v) of Section 2(d) a single act or omission referred to in them may be enough to treat the person concerned as an 'antisocial element', in the case of sub-clause (i), sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iv), there should be a repetition of acts or omissions of the same kind referred to in sub-clause (i), subclause (ii) or in sub-clause (iv) by the person concerned to treat him as an "anti-social element". Commission of an act or omission referred to in one of the sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) and of another act or omission referred to in any other of the said sub-clauses would not be sufficient to treat a person as an "anti-social element". A single act or omission falling under subclause (i) and a single act or omission falling under sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(d) cannot, therefore, be characterized as a habitual act or omission referred to in either of them. Because the idea of "habit" involves an element of persistence and a tendency to repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them they cannot be treated as habitual ones." 15. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that if a person is not an antisocial element, he cannot be detained under the Act of 2002. The detaining authority should, therefore, be satisfied that the person against whom an order is made under Section 12 of the Act is an anti-social element as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. Under sub-clause (i) of Section 2(d) of the Act, a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI dealing with offences affecting the human body or Chapter XVII dealing with offences against property, of the Penal Code, 1860 is considered to be an anti-social element. Further the expression "habitually" means "repeatedly" or "persistently". It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit. 16. It requires to refer herein that Section 12 of the Act, 2002 contains the word “anti-social” which qualifies the section 12 of Act 2002 for passing the order of detention of any individual or others. Section 12 of the Act is the initiation of the process of detaining a person under the Act, for ready reference the same is being quoted herein, which reads as under- “12. Power to make order detaining certain persons. - The State Government may- (1) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained. (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may by an order in writing direct, that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) exercise the powers conferred upon by the said sub-section: Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time. (3) When any order is made by District Magistrate, he shall forthwith report, the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after the making thereof unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government: Provided that where under Section 17 the grounds of detention are communicated by the officer making the order after five days but not later than ten days from the date of detention, this sub-section shall apply subject to the modification that, for the words "twelve days", the words "fifteen days" shall be substituted.” 17. Thus, from the perusal of Section 12 of the Act 2002, it is evident that power to make orders detaining certain persons are provided in section 12 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. Section 12(1) provides that if State Government is satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained. 18. 18. Hence, section 12(1) empowers the State Government to detain anti-social element if there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person. The anti-social element has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 and section 2(d)(i) of the Act provides that "Anti-social Element" means a person who either by himself or as a member of or leader of gang habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. 19. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is now, reverting to the first issue whether the criminal activities of petitioner come under the purview of definition of “Anti-social Elements’’ as defined under section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. 20. On going through the detention order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure-5/1), we find that in CCA No. 01/2025-26 detention order was passed by the respondent no.3- District Magistrate, Palamu, on the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, Palamu vide 265/DCB dated 20.05.2025 and letter no. 278/DCB dated 04.06.2025, wherein involvement of the petitioner in ten criminal cases and two cases based on sanha is mentioned. 21. We find from recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, Palamu vide letter no. 265/DCB dated 20.05.2025, the following ten FIRs have been registered against the petitioner in different police stations of district Palamu- i. Town PS Case No.350 of 2012 dated 05.08.2012 under sections 341/323/307/506 IPC and under section 27 Arms Act. ii. Town PS Case No.619 of 2015 dated 20.10.2015 under sections 384/387/120(B)/506/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act; iii. Town PS Case No.127 of 2016 dated 27.10.2016 under sections 302/307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act; iv. Town PS Case No.340 of 2017 dated 14.10.2017 under sections 307/34 of the IPC and section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act. v. Town PS Case No.263 of 2017 dated 20.08.2017 under sections 307 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. vi. Town PS Case No.33 of 2025 dated 13.01.2025 under sections 111(2) (b) of the BNS, and sections 25(1-B) (A)/26/35 of Arms Act. vii. Parwa PS Case No.13 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021 under sections 307/34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. viii. vi. Town PS Case No.33 of 2025 dated 13.01.2025 under sections 111(2) (b) of the BNS, and sections 25(1-B) (A)/26/35 of Arms Act. vii. Parwa PS Case No.13 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021 under sections 307/34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. viii. Parwa PS Case No.25 of 2021 dated 20.03.2021 under sections 385/386/387 IPC. ix. Parwa PS Case No. 108/2018, dated 25.10.2018 under section ¾ Explosive Substance Act and section 27 of the Arms Act. x. Mohammadganj PS Case No.20 of 2021 dated 08.07.2021 under sections 387/307/326/120(B)/34 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. 22. Hence, from the FIRs mentioned in the detention order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure-5/1), we find that the petitioner is habitual offender and crime committed by the petitioner ranges to murder, attempt to murder, extortion etc. and case under Explosive Substance Act and the several cases under Arms Act has also been registered against the petitioner. 23. Thus, petitioner habitually commits offences punishable under section Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code as defined in section 2(d)(i) of the Act. 24. Further, the detaining authority respondent no.3 while passing the detention order 05.06.2025 (Annexure-5/1), under section 12(2) of the Act was satisfied that the dentition of the petitioner was necessary as continuous criminal activities of the petitioner was causing threat to maintenance of public order. 25. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid factual aspect is of the view that the authority concerned has rightly considered that the act of the petitioner comes under the purview of the “Anti-social Elements’’ as stipulated under Section 2(d) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the orders of detention on this score need no interference. 26. Accordingly issue no. (i) is hereby answered. Re: Second issue 27. The second issue is whether the approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention? 28. But before considering this issue, the statutory provision related to Advisory Board and sections 21 and 22 as contained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 needs to be referred apart from judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex court on the said issue. 29. 28. But before considering this issue, the statutory provision related to Advisory Board and sections 21 and 22 as contained under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 needs to be referred apart from judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex court on the said issue. 29. The Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 has articulated specific time frame which starts from the moment an order of detention is passed by the District Magistrate under section 12(2) of the Act and 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. 30. Section 18 of the Act deals with constitution of Advisory Board and the same reads as follows:- “18. Constitution of Advisory Board.- The State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute Advisory Board for the purpose of this Act. (2) The Board shall consist of three persons who are or, have been, or are qualified to be appointed as Judges of High Court, and such persons shall be appointed by the Government. (3) The Government shall appoint one of the members of the Advisory Board, who is or has been, a Judge of a High Court to be its Chariman.” 31. An approval of the Advisory Board has to be taken as per Section 19 of the Act which reveals thus: - “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.” 32. Thus, the State Government has to place before the Advisory Board the order of detention along with the grounds and the representation if any filed by the detenu in terms of Section 17 of the Act. The procedure of the Advisory Board has been delineated in Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: - “20. Thus, the State Government has to place before the Advisory Board the order of detention along with the grounds and the representation if any filed by the detenu in terms of Section 17 of the Act. The procedure of the Advisory Board has been delineated in Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: - “20. Procedure of Advisory Board.-(1) The Advisory Board shall, after considering the materials placed before it and, after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the Government or from any person called for the purpose through the Government or from the person concerned, and if, in any particular case, it considers it essential so to do or if the person concerned desires to be heard, after hearing him in person, submit its report to the Government within seven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. (2) The report of the Advisory Board shall specify in a separate part thereof the opinion of the Advisory Board, as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. (3) When there is difference of opinion among the members forming the Advisory Board, the opinion of the majority of such members shall be deemed to be the opinion of the Board. (4) Nothing in this section shall entitle any person against whom a detention order has been made to appear by any legal practitioner in any matter connected with the reference to the Advisory Board and the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report, excepting that part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall be confidential.” 33. On Perusal of Section 20 of the Act reveals that the Advisory Board has to submit its report within a period of seven weeks from the date of detention of the detenu. 34. The entire process from the date of detention to the submission of the report by the Advisory Board is seven weeks which includes three weeks from the date of detention by which time the State Government is required to refer the matter to the Advisory Board for its approval. After the period enumerated as aforesaid is completed Section 21 of the Act then comes into operation delegating power to the State Government to confirm the detention and continue the detention for the period it thinks fit. After the period enumerated as aforesaid is completed Section 21 of the Act then comes into operation delegating power to the State Government to confirm the detention and continue the detention for the period it thinks fit. Section 21 of the Act 2002 reads as under- “21. Action upon the report of the Advisory Board-(1) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its option, sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government may conform the detention order and continue the dention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit.” (2) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released forthwith.” 35. The maximum period in which a detenu can be detained under the provisions of the Act is one year as depicted in Section 22 of the Act. Section 22 of the Act reads as under- “22. Maximum period of detention-The maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order which has been confirmed under section 21 shall be twelve months from the date of detention.” 36. Thus, Section 21 of the Act 2002 provides for the action to be taken by the State Government on receipt of the report of the advisory board, where Board is of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government may confirm the detention of the person for such period as it deems fit subject to the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board. However, where the Advisory Board has reported that there is no sufficient cause for his detention, the Government shall revoke the detention order and release the detenu forthwith. 37. Now coming to the factual aspect of the instant case, the detention order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure-5/1), was passed by the respondent no.3 District Magistrate, Palamu, which was approved by the Advisory Board and consequently, order dated 18.07.2025, was passed by the Under Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 05/CCA/01/38/2025-256/CCA, confirming the detention order of the petitioner and specifying that the petitioner has been detained for 03 months starting from 05.06.2025 till 04.09.2025. 38. 05/CCA/01/38/2025-256/CCA, confirming the detention order of the petitioner and specifying that the petitioner has been detained for 03 months starting from 05.06.2025 till 04.09.2025. 38. Further, District Magistrate, Palamu, by order dated 01.09.2025(Annexure-10) passed an order in CCA Case No. 01/2025-26 wherein under Section 12(2) of Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, the detention of the petitioner was extended for a period of three month from 05.09.2025 till 04.12.2025 and, hence, petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid extension of the detention order. 39. Contention has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid extension orders 05.09.2025 to 04.12.2025 was not confirmed by the Advisory Council which is a mandate as per section 19 and 21 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act 2002 and since the mandate of the Act, 2002 has not been followed as such detention order of the petitioner is not legally sustainable. 40. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that the period of three months mentioned in Section 12 (2) of the Act 2002 which is pari materia with Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 which was a subject matter before the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court which had decided the issue in the case of Abdul Razak v. State of Karnataka 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 2855, the Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order of the Full Bench is being quoted as under: “16. Also having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. DEVAKI's case, which is also a decision of three Hon'ble Judges, as discussed in detail above to hold that the period specified in Section 3(2) of the Act does not relate to the period of detention, but to the period of delegation made by the State Government in favour of the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police. 17. On a careful reading of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CHERUKURI MANI, in light of the previous decision in T. DEVAKI, it becomes clear that there is a dichotomy or conflict of opinion between the two decisions. It is clear that in CHERUKURI MANI, there is no reference made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in T. DEVAKI. It is clear that in CHERUKURI MANI, there is no reference made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in T. DEVAKI. Further, T. DEVAKI is a dictum of three Judge Bench while CHERUKURI MANI is a decision of the two Judge Bench. Obviously, the decision in T. DEVAKI has, not been brought to the notice of the two Judge Bench, which rendered the decision in CHERUKURI MANI. Significantly, the provision of law under consideration in the aforesaid cases namely, Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Act, the Tamil Nadu Act and the Karnataka Act, are in pari materia”. 41. Here, it is pertinent to note that the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court has been approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pesala Nookaraju v. State of A.P. , (2023) 14 SCC 641, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the said issue. In this case Hon’ble Apex Court was hearing the appeal filed by the detenu, who was preventively detained under section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act,1986(for short ‘the 1986 Act’). Section 3 of the Act provides power to make orders detaining certain persons. Section 12 of the Act provides for the action upon report of the Advisory Board, which provides for passing confirmatory order by the State Government and as per Section 13 maximum period of detention can be 12 months. At paragraph-45, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if any period is specified in the confirmatory order, then the period of detention would be up to such period, if no period is specified, then it would be for a maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention. The State Government, in our view, need not review the orders of detention every three months after it has passed the confirmatory order and further, at paragraph-46 Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the order of detention is confirmed, then the period of detention can be extended up to the maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention. The State Government, in our view, need not review the orders of detention every three months after it has passed the confirmatory order and further, at paragraph-46 Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the order of detention is confirmed, then the period of detention can be extended up to the maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention. Lastly, at paragraph-47, Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Act does not contemplate a review of the detention order once the Advisory Board has opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the person concerned and, on that basis, a confirmatory order is passed by the State Government to detain a person for the maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention. Paragraph-45,46 and 47 of the judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference- “45. We reiterate that the period of three months stipulated in Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution is relatable to the initial period of detention up to the stage of receipt of report of the Advisory Board and does not have any bearing on the period of detention, which is continued subsequent to the confirmatory order being passed by the State Government on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board. The continuation of the detention pursuant to the confirmatory order passed by the State Government need not also specify the period of detention; neither is it restricted to a period of three months only. If any period is specified in the confirmatory order, then the period of detention would be up to such period, if no period is specified, then it would be for a maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention. The State Government, in our view, need not review the orders of detention every three months after it has passed the confirmatory order. 46. Thus, in our view, the period of three months specified in Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution of India is relatable to the period of detention prior to the report of the Advisory Board and not to the period of detention subsequent thereto. Further, the period of detention in terms of Article 22(4)(a) cannot be in force for a period beyond three months, if by then, the Advisory Board has not given its opinion holding that there is sufficient cause for such detention. Further, the period of detention in terms of Article 22(4)(a) cannot be in force for a period beyond three months, if by then, the Advisory Board has not given its opinion holding that there is sufficient cause for such detention. Therefore, under Article 22(4)(a), the Advisory Board would have to give its opinion within a period of three months from the date of detention and depending upon the opinion expressed by the Advisory Board, the State Government can under Section 12 of the Act, either confirm the order of detention or continue the detention of the person concerned for a maximum period of twelve months as specified in Section 13 of the Act or release the detenu forthwith, as the case may be. If the order of detention is confirmed, then the period of detention can be extended up to the maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention. 47. With respect, we observe that it is not necessary that before the expiration of three months, it is necessary for the State Government to review the order of detention as has been expressed by this Court in Cherukuri Mani [Cherukuri Mani v. State of A.P., (2015) 13 SCC 722 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] . The Act does not contemplate a review of the detention order once the Advisory Board has opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the person concerned and on that basis, a confirmatory order is passed by the State Government to detain a person for the maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention. On the other hand, when under Section 3(2) of the Act, the State Government delegates its power to the District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police to exercise its power and pass an order of detention, the delegation in the first instance cannot exceed three months and the extension of the period of delegation cannot also be for a period exceeding three months at any one time. [See : Abdul Razak v. State of Karnataka [Abdul Razak v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 2855 : ILR 2017 Kar 4608] (FB).]” (emphasis supplied) 42. [See : Abdul Razak v. State of Karnataka [Abdul Razak v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 2855 : ILR 2017 Kar 4608] (FB).]” (emphasis supplied) 42. Herein, it is evident from the detention order dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure-5/1) which was passed by the respondent no.3-District Magistrate, Palamu, and was approved by the Advisory Board and consequent thereto, order dated 18.07.2025, was passed by the Under Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 05/CCA/01/38/2025-256/CCA, confirming the detention order of the petitioner and specifying that the petitioner has been detained for 03 months starting from 05.06.2025 till 04.09.2025. 43. Thereafter, District Magistrate, Palamu, by order dated 01.09.2025(Annexure-10) passed an order in CCA Case No. 01/2025-26 wherein under Section 12(2) of Jharkhand Crime Control Act, 2002, the detention of the petitioner was extended for a period of three month from 05.09.2025 till 04.12.2025. 44. Thus, taking into consideration the factual aspects of the instant case with the legal issues dealt with in the preceding paragraphs which would reveal that the respondent no.3 District Magistrate, Palamu, has extended the period of detention of the petitioner for a period of three months i.e. from 05.9.2025 till 04.12.2025. 45. Hence, on the basis of the discussion made herein above, it is considered view of this Court that no approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pesala Nookaraju (supra) wherein it has been observed that if once the Advisory Board has opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the person concerned and, on that basis, a confirmatory order is passed by the State Government to detain a person for the maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention, then review of the detention order is not required by the State Government. 46. More, specifically in the present case, once the proposal for detention was approved by the Advisory Board and thereafter, confirmatory order dated 18.07.2025(Annexure-6), was passed by the Under Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 05/CCA/01/38/2025-256/CCA, confirming the detention order, then as per ratio laid down in Pesala Nookaraju (supra) , no approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention. 47. Accordingly issue no. (ii) is hereby answered. 05/CCA/01/38/2025-256/CCA, confirming the detention order, then as per ratio laid down in Pesala Nookaraju (supra) , no approval of the Advisory Board is required for extending the period of detention. 47. Accordingly issue no. (ii) is hereby answered. Re: Issue No. III 48. Further, petitioner in paragraph-21 of the petition has raised ground that he has been granted bail in all ten cases by the Court of law, and the said cases were relied by the detaining authority while passing the detention order dated 05.06.2025 and confirmation order dated 18.07.2025(Annexure-6), passed by the Under Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 05/CCA/01/38/2025-256/CCA, hence, detention order cannot be sustained. 49. So far as release on bail of the detenue is concerned, we find that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that in spite of his continuous activities causing threat to maintenance of public order and in such circumstances, based on the relevant materials and satisfying itself, that it would not be possible to control his habituality in continuing the criminal activities by resorting the normal procedures, the Detaining Authority passed an order detaining him under the Act. 50. The ground of bail cannot be said to affect the decision taken by the competent authority of detention, rather the accusation so made in the First Information Report is to be seen for the purpose to have the subjective satisfaction of the nature of accusation made in the said FIR but the allegation has been made against the writ petitioner that is of serious in nature. 51. The consideration of coming from judicial custody by virtue of order passed by the Court to release on bail has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.M Nagaraja Versus Government of Karnataka and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 215 wherein detenue had challenged his detention order. The Hon’ble Apex Court in this case had noted in paragraph-17 that the even after release on bail detenue again started indulging in the same type of offences, particularly, threatening the public life, damaging public property, etc. and hence, detenue appeal was dismissed. The Hon’ble Apex Court in this case had noted in paragraph-17 that the even after release on bail detenue again started indulging in the same type of offences, particularly, threatening the public life, damaging public property, etc. and hence, detenue appeal was dismissed. Further in paragraph-20 of the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court had noted the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order against the detenue, for the ready reference Paragraph-17 and 20 of D.M. Nagaraja(supra) case is quoted herein below - “17. All the abovementioned details which have been correctly stated in the detention order clearly show that the appellant is not amenable to ordinary course of law. It also shows that even after his release on bail from the prison on various occasions, he again started indulging in the same type of offences, particularly, threatening the public life, damaging public property, etc. All these aspects have been meticulously considered by the detaining authority and after finding that in order to maintain public order, since his activities are prejudicial to the public, causing harm and danger, the detaining authority detained him as “goonda” under Karnataka Act 12 of 1985 for a period of 12 months and the same was rightly approved by the Advisory Board and the State Government. Inasmuch as the detaining authority has taken note of all the relevant materials and strictly followed all the safeguards as provided in the Act ensuring the liberty of the detenue, we are in entire agreement with the decision of the detaining authority as well as the impugned order of the High Court affirming the same.” x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x “20. In the case on hand, we have already extracted criminality, criminal activities starting from the age of 30 and details relating to eleven cases mentioned in the grounds of detention. It is not in dispute that in one case he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine years. He had been acquitted in two cases and four cases are pending against him wherein he was granted bail by the courts. It is not in dispute that in one case he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine years. He had been acquitted in two cases and four cases are pending against him wherein he was granted bail by the courts. It is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that in spite of his continuous activities causing threat to maintenance of public order, he was getting bail one after another and indulging in the same activities. In such circumstances, based on the relevant materials and satisfying itself, namely, that it would not be possible to control his habituality in continuing the criminal activities by resorting to normal procedure, the detaining authority passed an order detaining him under Act 12 of 1985.” 52. Hence, from the FIRs mentioned in the detention order dated 05.06.2025(Annexure-5/1), it is evident that crime committed by the petitioner ranges murder, attempt to murder, extortion etc. and the cases under Explosive Substance Act and Arms Act has also been registered against the petitioner. Thus, petitioner habitually commits offences punishable under section Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code as defined in section 2(d) of the Act. 53. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the orders of detention dated 05.06.2025 passed in CCA Case No. 01/2025-26 by the respondent no.3-District Magistrate, Palamu, under Section 12(2) under the Act 2002 is proper and based upon the mandate of Indian Constitution as well as the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act 2002. 54. Accordingly issue no. (iii) is hereby answered. 55. Petitioner has alleged that effective opportunity was not given to the petitioner to make representation. But, after going through the paragraph-19 and 20 of the writ petition, wherein it has been mentioned that the order of extension of detention dated 01.09.2025 was communicated, as such the said contention of the petitioner is not fit to be accepted. 56. Further from the perusal of the detention order dated 05.06.2025 as well as order of extension of detention dated 01.09.2025, it is evident that the said orders were communicated to the detenue by following the due procedure as stipulated in the Act 2002, as such there is also strict adherence of the principle of the natural justice by the authority concerned. 57. 57. Accordingly, the detention order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure-5/1), confirmation order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure-6), passed by the Under Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand vide memo no. 05/CCA/01/38/2025-256/CCA, and of extension of detention dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure-10) extending the period of preventive detention, need not require to interfere with. 58. Consequent thereto, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 59. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. I Agree. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)