JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J. :---By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 6th May, 1995 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay (respondent No. 1) detaining him under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner have been detailed in the grounds of detention which were served on the petitioner on 9th May, 1995. The basis of the petitioner's detention in the aforesaid grounds appear to be three incidents in each of which the petitioner was involved.

(i) The first is alleged to have taken place on 9th January, 1994, on the basis of which C.R. No. 16/94 at Police Station Kurla under section 302/34 I.P.C. read with sections 3, 25 27 of the Arms Act read with section 37(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act was registered;

(ii) The second incident is alleged to have taken place on 6th May, 1994 and on the basis of the same, C.R. No. 203/94 under section 387, read with 34 I.P.C. was registered next day (on 7th May, 1994) at 3 p.m. at police station, Dadar; and

(iii) The third incident pertains to recovery of a revolver from the possession of the petitioner and that recovery is said to have been made on 4th July, 1994. On its basis, a case under section 3 25 of the Arms Act was registered at police station, Dadar against the petitioner.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The main submission canvassed by Mr. Raja Thakare learned Counsel for the petitioner before us is that the inordinate delay in the issuance of the detention order has snapped the live link between the alleged prejudicial activity and the proposed preventive detention. This submission is based on ground No. (m) at page 12 of the petition. The substance of the aforesaid ground and of the contention of Mr. Thakare is that in between the third incident which took place on 6th July, 1994 and the date of the issuance of the detention order which was 6th May, 1995, a delay of full ten months had occasioned and this inordinate delay of ten months which is unexplained snaps the live link between the alleged prejudicial activity of the petitioner and the proposed detention order.

4. The aforesaid ground taken in the petition referred to in the preceeding paragraph has been replied to in paragraph 11 of the return filed by the respondent No.1. It would be useful to reproduce that paragraph in entirety. It reads thus:---

Paragraph 11

"With reference to the para 7(d), 7(e) of the petition, I say that the first incident (C.R. No. 16/94) was on 8-1-1994. After commission of the incident, detenu was at large. He was involved in another offence which took place on 6-5-95 registered vide C.R. No 203/94. On 4-7-94 an information was received that the detenu would be visiting Bhiku Building, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi. Accordingly, a trap was arranged and the detenu was arrested at 00.50 hrs on 5-7-94. He was searched in the presence of panchas and a revolver was found in the possession of the detenu and therefore, L.A.C. No. 929/1994 came to be registered under sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. In C.R. No. 203/94 and L.A.C. No. 929/94 the detenu was shown arrested on 5-7-94 in which he was ordered to be released on bail on 18-7-94. He did not avail of the bail facility. On 18-7-94 his custody was taken by the Kurla police station and the detenu was shown arrested in C.R. No. 16/94. In the meantime, on 17-9-94, the sponsoring authority collected necessary documents and submitted the proposal to me through proper channel. The proposal was first scrutinized by Senior Police Inspector of Dadar Police Station, Bombay. It was then placed before the A.C.P. Mahim Division, on the same day i.e. 17-9-94 who cleared it and placed the proposal before the D.C.P., Zone IV, on the same day. The D.C.P., Zone IV, recommended the proposal and further submitted it to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Region on 19-9-94, who also recommended it on the same day. It was then sent to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document