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 s