ANANT SINGH @ ANANT KUMAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 5 S.C.R. 147 · Decided: 12-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 5 S.C.R. 147 
ANANT SINGH @ ANANT KUMAR SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORSt 
(Criminal Appeal No. 533of2017) 
APRIL 12,2017 
[R. F. NARIMAN AND 
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 - s.23(2) and ss.2(d), 12 
and 17 - First preventive order dated 5. 09.16 issued against C 
appellant by respondent-State - The same was revoked vide 
revocation order dated 17.9.2016 - Second detention order dated 
21.9.16 issued on the same grounds as the previous detention order 
dated 5.9.16 except certain other grounds all of which had arisen 
prior to 17. 9.16 - Writ petition by appellant challenging the second 
detention order contending that since the first detention order was 
D 
revoked, the second detention order in view of s.23(2) ought to 
have been passed on the fresh grounds only and not on same grounds 
and since that was not done the second detention order was illegal 
- Writ petition dismissed - On appeal, held: Admittedly, the second 
order of detention dated 21.9.2016 is passed only on grounds which 
arose prior to the order of revocation order dated 17.9.2016- Thus, 
E 
F 
it would fall foul of s.23(2) - The expression "'where fresh facts 
have arisen" in s.23(2) is followed by "'the date of revocation or 
expiry .... "- Therefore, literal language of s.23(2) leads only tv the 
conclusion that it is the date of revocation order and not the date of 
original order of detention that is referred to - The Act being a 
statute providing for preventive detention, has to be construed 
keeping the subjects liberty in mind, i.e. it has tu be construed 
keeping Arts. 21 and 22 of the Constitution in mind - Detention 
order dated 21.9.2016 is set aside - Preventive detention -
Constitution of India - Arts. 21 and 22 - Rule of interpretati:m -
G 
Literal rule of interpretation. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The second order of detention dated 21.9.2016 
was passed only on grounds which arose prior to the order of 
147 
H 
148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 5 S.C.K 
A 
revocation dated 17.9.2016. Thus, it would fall foul of Section 
23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. [Para 7) !154-C-
D] 
B 
Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack & 
Another [1969) 1 SCR 227 - followed. 
Jagdev Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1968 
SC 327 - distinguished. 
1.2. The State contended that the expression "where fresh 
facts have arisen ... " in Section 23(2) would show that these facts 
should have arisen after the date of the first order of de~ention, 
C and since facts have arisen after s•h September, 2016, the 
provisions of Section 23(2) are satisfied. This submission goes 
contrary to the express language of Section 23(2). The expression 
"where fresh facts have arisen .. " is followed by "the date of 
revotation or expiry .... ".Accepting State's submission would mean 
D substituting the last expression with the words "the date of the 
detention order". This cannot be done. The 1981 Act !:>eing a 
statute which provides for preventive detention, it has to be 
construed keeping the subject's liberty in mind, that is, it has to 
be construed keeping Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution in 
mind. Here no supposed object of the Act can be looked at to 
E 
defezt the aforesaid Articles of the Constitution particularly when 
the literal language of Section 23(2) leads only to the conclusion 
that it is the date of the revocation order and not the datP. of the 
original order of detention that is referred to. [Para 11) (159-A-
D] 
F 
Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate Burdwan & Anr. 
G 
H 
AIR 1964 SC 334 : [1964) SCR 921; Har Jas Dev 
Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 575 : 
(1974] 1 SCR 28; Chhagan Bhagwqn Kahar v. N. L. 
Kaina & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 318 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(1964) SCR 921 
followed 
Para4 
(1969] 1 SCR 227 
distinguished 
Pi;ra 7 
[1968) SCR 197 
referred to 
Para 7 
(1974] 1 SCR 281 
referred to 
Para9 
(1989) 2 sec 318 
referred to 
Pi.ra 9 
ANANT SINGH @ ANANT KUMAR SINGH v. THE STATE OF 
149 
BIHAR AND ORS. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal A 
No. 533 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2017 of the High Court 
of judicature at Patna in Criminal Writ Petition Case No. 11950 of'.:!016. 
U. R. Lalit, Sr. Adv, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Mehul Shi>rma, 
Kripa Shankar Prasad, Advs. for the Appellant. 
Basant R, Sr. Adv, M. Shoeb Alam, Mojahid Karim Khan, A.dvs. 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.