2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 19th February, 2001, was served on the detenu on 21st February, 2001 and their true copies are annexed as Exhibits A and B respectively to this writ petition.

3. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R. namely C.R. No. 78 of 2000 under sections 387, 506 34 I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 12-8-2000 lodged by Liyakatali Sufajjal Mandal at Wadala Police Station against the detenu and his associates and in camera statements of two witnesses namely A and B which were recorded on 6th October 2000 and 7th October, 2000 respectively.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition, Mr. U.N. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds numbered from ground Nos. 8(A) to 8(D) but, since in our judgment, this writ petition deserves to succeed on a solitary ground namely that pleaded as ground No. 8(A), we are not adverting to the other grounds of challenge raised in the petition.

5. Ground No. 8(A) in substance is that between the last prejudicial activity contained in the in-camera statement of witness B which was recorded on 7th October, 2000 and the date on which the impugned detention order was passed i.e. on 19th February, 2001, there was an inordinate time-gap of nearly 4½ months which severed the live link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rationale of clamping a detention order on him. It has also been pleaded in ground No. 8(A) that the Detaining Authority be called upon to disclose and explain to this Court as to why there was the aforesaid delay in the issuance of the impugned detention order.

6. Ground No. 8(A) has been replied to in para 8 of the return of the Detaining Authority and in paras 2 to 5 of the return of Mr. T.L. Patil, Inspector of Police attached to the Prevention of Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, PCB, CID, Mumbai.

7. We now propose extracting the substance of the reply contained in the said two returns.

We begin with para 8 of the return of the Detaining Authority

In short, he has stated therein as under:

The in-camera statement (of witness B) was recorded on 7th October, 2000. Thereafter, on 10th October, 2000 the proposal to detain the detenu along with accompanying papers was submitted by the Senior Inspector of Police, Wadala Police Station, Bombay to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Port Zone, Bombay who went through the papers and gave his endorsement on 12th October, 2000 and forwarded the papers to the Additional Commissioner of Police, South Region, Bombay who went through the papers and gave his endorsement on 16th October, 2000 and forwarded the papers to the Senior Police Inspector, PCB, CID, Bombay who went through them and gave his endorsement on 21st October, 2000. Thereafter the papers were forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Preventive) Bombay who went through them and gave his endorsement on 27th October, 2000, and forwarded the papers to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime who went through them and gave his endorsement on 31st October, 2000 on which date he forwarded the papers to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) who went through them and gave this endorsement on 4th November, 2000.

On 4th November, 2000, the file was put up before the Detaining Aut