Non-consideration of relevant material, such as bail orders, can render a detention order illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Sunil B.Shukre, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The detenu has been preventively detained vide order dated 04.09.2021 passed by respondent No.3, which has been confirmed by the State. These orders are under challenge in this petition.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detention order is patently illegal as it suffers from basic defects. He points out that several crimes registered against the detenu were considered and it was well known to the detaining authority that in all the seven crimes the detenu was on bail and yet, the reasons of grant of bail were not placed before the detaining authority. He also submits that some documents were not supplied to the detenu. On these grounds he urges that the detention order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned APP strongly opposes the petition and submits that out of seven crimes considered by the detaining authority, two crimes were of recent origin and a detailed discussion in respect of the facts of those crimes and the extent of the involvement of the detenu has been made and the effect of his such involvement together with his previous criminal activity has been appropriately considered by the detaining authority. He also submits that the previous criminal activity and the two crimes recently registered against the detenu and the statements of two confidential witnesses sufficiently indicated that the detenu continuously and consistently indulged in criminal activities so much so that ordinary measures of law were not sufficient for putting restrain on him and it was found that his criminal activity was disturbing public order and therefore, the satisfaction reached by the detaining authority is proper and beyond any question.

6. Learned APP further submits that in five of seven crimes, copies of bail orders were not placed before the detaining authority, but, in one of the recent crimes, Crime No.810 of 2021, copy of the bail application as well as copy of the operative bail order was placed before the authority. He further submits that in another recent crime bearing Crime No.252 of 2021, the detenu was not arrested by the Investigating Officer, but was only given an intimation to remain present before the concerned Court as and when called upon to do so, by that Court, and this intimation was given under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, therefore, submits that the requirement of law of placing the bail order before the detaining authority insofar as the recent crimes are concerned, has been substantially fulfilled in this case. He, thus, submits that there is no merit in the petition.

7. We would first deal with the objection that bail orders were not placed before the detaining authority. On this point, the law is very clear. This Court, in the case of Elizabeth Ranibhai Prabhudas Gaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. reported in 2021 ALL MR (Cri) 1394, following the law expounded by the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Vs.Union of India and ors reported in AIR 1991 SC 2261 held thus:-

“If the Authority does not take into consideration the orders of bail granted to the proposed detenue, it may lead to an anomalous situation whereby one authority of law i.e. Criminal Court thinks it fit to enlarge such a person in criminal offences registered against him and the other authority of law considers it necessary that such person is detained in custody because of his criminal activities exhibited by pendency of criminal cases against him. The law does not expect any mismatch between the orders passed by the two law enforcing authorities and therefore, it is necessary that when one authority releases a person on bail, the other authority seeking to detain him again for the same criminal activities, considers the impact of the bail order and reaches to an appropriate conclusion in the matter. This law