JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ petition is heard finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 01.12.2021, passed by the Respondent no.2 – District Magistrate, Yavatmal, whereby the son of the Petitioner was detained under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short, “the MPDA Act”).

3. The principle ground of challenge raised in the present writ petition is that crucial facts were not brought to notice of the Detaining Authority, when the impugned order was passed. There are other grounds of challenge also raised in the present writ petition, but Shri Navlani, learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasized upon the admitted position that neither bail application nor the order passed thereon concerning Crime No.510 of 2021 were placed before the Detaining Authority and insofar as Crime No.543 of 2021 is concerned, the details thereof as regards bail application preferred on behalf of the detenu and the order passed there