JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner-detenu and Ms. A.R. Kamat, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The order of detention in this case was passed on 10-12-2001. It was served upon the detenu on 15-12-2001. The detention order is based on two C.Rs. and two in-camera statements vide C.R. Nos. 205 of 2001 and 252 of 2001. In the petition the detenu has challenged the detention on number of grounds. However, Mr. Tripathi restricted himself to only three grounds, namely grounds (A), (B) and (F).

3. Ground (A) pertains to delay. According to Mr. Tripathi the last in-camera statement was recorded on 1-10-2001. However, the detention order was passed on 10-12-2001 and therefore according to him this delay of 2 months and 11 days is fatal and on account of delay the detention order is liable to be quashed. The second ground (B) raised by Mr. Tripathi is that the detenu was in judicial custody of the aforesaid C.Rs. and so far as C.R. No. 205 of 2001 is concerned offence against the detenu were under sections 392, 397, 342, 452 of I.P.C. and under C.R. No. 252 of 2001 offences were under sections 394, 395, 397, 307, 34 I.P.C. r/w 3, 25, 27 Arms Act r/w 37(a)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document