JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J.:---By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Paras s/o Ramprasad Sahu has challenged the detention order dated 12th August, 2002 passed by respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Wardha detaining the petitioner under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996) for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 12th August, 2002 was served on the petitioner on 13th August, 2002.

3. As could be seen from the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority took into consideration the fact of petitioner's involvement in activities of bootleggers and engaging himself in contravention of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and in all, eight cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act have been registered against him at Police Station, Wardha city and the petitioner has been continuously engaging himself in commission of violent and desperate acts such as house trespass, hurt, mischief, robbery, criminal intimidation etc. on the point of dreadful weapons and his involvement in Police Station, Wardha City in Crime No. 78 of 2002 for the offences under sections 452, 323, 427 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and at Police Station, Wardha in Crime No. 82 of 2002 for the offences under section 394, 427 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also statement of two witnesses recorded in camera. The Detaining Authority was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner was acting in such a manner extremely prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In view of his tendency and/or inclinations reflecting the incidents referred to above, the Detaining Authority was satisfied that the petitioner was likely to indulge in activities extremely prejudicial to maintenance of public order and that is how, the Detaining Authority passed the detention order and in pursuance of that order, the petitioner came to be detained.

4. The detention order came to be challenged by the petitioner on various grounds as raised in the petition. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to press in service the contention pleaded in ground No. 11 of the petition. In our opinion, since the petition deserves to be allowed on that legal contention, we are not adverting to other prejudicial activities of detenu contained in the grounds of detention.

5. The said ground, in short, is that the petitioner was on bail at the time of passing of the order of detention. However, respondent No. 2, the Detaining Authority, has not taken into consideration the application for bail nor the order passed by the Court releasing the petitioner on bail and the petitioner was not supplied with the application for bail and the orders passed thereon. Mr. Daga, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that when the detenu was on bail at the relevant time and the bail papers were not placed before the Detaining Authority for consideration, subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority has been materially impaired and that has also effectively affected right of the petitioner to make effective representation and thereby the detention order cannot sustain. He placed reliance on three decisions of this Court namely 1999 ALL.M.R.(Cri.) 1571 (Smt. Zeenat Anjum Memom v. The State of Maharashtra and others)1, 2000 All.M.R.(Cri.) 792 (Shri Abbad Ali Khan v. Shri R.H. Mendonca and others)2, and 2000 All.M.R.(Cri.) 511 (Meer Mohmadali @ Baba s/o. Meer Tojoddin v. S.B. Kulkarni and others)3.

6. The factual position that the petitioner was on bail when the order of detention came to be passed is not disputed. It is also very significant to note that, in both the crimes, the petitioner had applied for bail and his application has been opposed by the prosecution and the Court has granted bail. It is also not dispu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document