JUDGMENT :

S.S. Shinde, J.

Heard both sides.

2. The Petitioner / Detenu Lakhan Rohidas Jagtap has preferred this Petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 15th March 2019 by Respondent No. 1 - Commissioner of Police, Pune City. The said detention order has been passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act'). The said detention order has been issued as the Detenu is a Dangerous person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order is based on two Crimes i.e. C.R. No. 465 of 2018 registered with Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and another incident occurred on 21st November 2018 vide C.R. no. 330 of 2018 registered with Sahakarnagar Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 37(1)(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act read with 4(25) of Arms Act, and two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B', recorded on 20th January 2019 and 5th February 2019 respectively.

3. Though the number of grounds have been raised in the present petition whereby the detention order has been assailed, however, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner / Detenue has pressed only two grounds before us i.e. ground nos. 'e' and 'f'. Those grounds are reproduced herein below in verbatim.

e. The Petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority has taken into consideration 2 criminal cases vide C.R. No. 464 of 2019 under Section 307, 323, 504, 34 of I.P.C. registered at Bharati Vidyapeet Police Station, Pune, the Second case vide C.R. No. 330 of 2018 under Section 37 (1) (3), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, r.w. Section 4(25) of Arms Act registered at Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune. These two cases are considered by the detaining authority for arriving at his satisfaction and passing the order of detention. It is stated that in C.R. No. 465 of 2018, the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge, Pune ordered for release of the detenu on 11.01.2019 by passing a reasoned order running into 3 pages. It is pertinent to note here that the sponsoring authority has not placed before the detaining authority the bail order passed with reasoning in C.R. No. 465 of 2018, what is found at page No. 201 of compilation of documents is an operative part of the order, which is cryptic and short order whereas detailed reasoned order is withheld by the sponsoring authority. Thus, the detaining authority is not aware of the reasons given by the Ld. Sessions Court, Pune, there are many vital facts which are most relevant for taking into consideration. The Ld. Sessions Court while granting bail to the detenu has observed in paragraph 5 of the order that since other two Accused were already released on bail therefore, on the ground of parity the detenu is entitled to be released on bail. Further, one vital aspect in the order found in the reasoned order that the detenu is granted bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount whereas the detaining authority in the cryptic order at page 201 of the compilation has stated that the detenu will be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of 50,000/- with one surety in like amount. such a variance between two versions in the bail order vitiates the satisfaction of the detaining authority and creates confusion with the detenu. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law for non-placement of vital documents like reasoned bail order, which is most relevant and relied on by the detaining authority. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside.

f. The Petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority has taken into consideration two statements of witness 'A' and 'B' recorded in-camera which are found at page 289 and