The failure to consider the orders of bail granted to the detenu by the competent Court vitiated the detention order, as it deprived the detaining authority of the opportunity to consider relevant material.

JUDGMENT :

Valmiki Sa Menezes, J.

1. Rule. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is a Criminal Writ Petition invoking this Court’s powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking a writ, order or direction to quash and set aside order of detention of the Petitioner dated 30.12.2021, passed by Respondent No. 2 – the Collector and District Magistrate, Amravati, under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short ‘of the Act of 1981’), which order was confirmed by impugned order dated 04.02.2022 issued by Respondent No. 1 – State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be continued in detention for a period of twelve months.

3. Shri Gandhe, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent No. 3 – Police Inspector, Police Station, Warud, District – Amravati, through the Superintendent of Police, Amravati and Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Morshi, had furnished a confidential proposal dated 01.12.2021 bearing No. 410/2021 to the Respondent No. 2, proposing preventive detention of the Petitioner on the ground that the alleged criminal activities of the petitioner in the area were creating terror in the vicinity of Police Station, Warud. He further submitted that the proposal contained seven criminal cases registered against the Petitioner since the year 2017, on which basis preventive action was sought against the Petitioner in the said proposal.

4. He further submitted that by the aforesaid proposal, Respondent No. 3 had relied upon statements of two confidential witnesses who alleged that the Petitioner had given threats and they were under apprehension that the Petitioner would indulge in further acts of violence against them. That the detaining authority, Respondent No. 2 accepted the proposal dated 01.12.2021 furnished by Respondent No. 3, passed the impugned detention order dated 30.12.2021 under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2) of the Act of 1981, along with grounds of preventive detention stated therein. It is further his contention that the impugned detention order is also based upon two offences made reference to therein and specifically bearing:

(i) Crime No. 655/2021 under Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, read with Section 123 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, registered at Police Station Warud.

(ii) Crime No. 482/2021 under Section 392, 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Warud.

It was further submitted that the main ground for challenging the order of detention was that the reliance of the Respondent No. 2, on the two offences of the year 2021, out of the seven offences registered against the Petitioner, was without reference to or considering the bail orders passed by the competent Magistrate in the aforesaid two cases namely Crime No. 655/2021 and Crime No. 482/2021, since the orders passed in bail applications moved by the petitioner in the said two criminal applications had never been placed before the detaining authority for consideration, before the impugned orders were passed.

5. Mr. Gandhe, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the orders granting bail, the first order being dated 01.09.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Warud, in Crime No. 482/2021 and the second bail order being dated 12.11.2021 passed in Crime No. 655/2021 and took us through the reasons cited by the Magistrate for enlarging the Petitioner on bail.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ratnamala Mukund Balkhande and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 820/2021 decided on 01.07.2