JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

1. Petitioner has challenged the Order of Detention dated 19th May, 2022 issued by Commissioner of Police, Thane under the provisions of 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 ‘M.P.D.A. Act’). The Petitioner was served upon the Order of Detention, grounds of detention and the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority while issuing the Order of Detention.

2. Learned Advocate Ms. Tripathi appearing for the Petitioner submitted that, the Detaining Authority was aware that the Petitioner is already in judicial custody without availing bail in C.R. No. I-89/2022 registered with Kalwa Police Station for offence under Section 307, 325, 323, 504 r/w Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, r/w Sections 37(1) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act. In camera statements were recorded while the Petitioner was in custody. The Detaining Authority has not disclosed any possibility of release on bail. The bail application preferred by the Petitioner was pending before the Court. The Detaining Authority has not disclosed any cogent material and facts which necessitated the making of the Detention Order. The valid Detention Order can only be passed against the detenu if the Detaining Authority is subjectively satisfied that there is real or imminent possibility of detenu being released on bail based on cogent material and that it is absolute imperative to pass a valid detention Order against the detenu while he is in custody. The Detaining Authority is duty bound to express his satisfaction in the ground of detention as to the imminent possibility of detenu’s release on bail, which is not done in this case. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is vitiated as it is not based on any cogent material whatsoever.

3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

1. Ramesh Yadav vs. District Magistrate, Etah and Others, (1985) 4 SCC 232

2. Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India and Another, (1991) 1 SCC 128

3. Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs. S.N. Sinha, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Another, (1989) 2 SCC 222

4. Binod Singh vs. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar and Another, (1986) 4 SCC 416

5. Smt. A. Shanthi vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 711

6. Smt. Suman Sudhakar Jadhav vs. The Commissioner of Police Thane and Others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 3977 of 2017, dated 20.12.2017

7. Shri Manmoorat R. Pandey vs. The Commissioner of Police, Thane and Others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1001 of 2022, dated 4.8.2022

8. Dharmendra Sughand Chelawat vs. Union of Indian and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1196

9. Ahmedhussain Shaikhhussain @ Ahmed Kalio vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Another, (1989) 4 SCC 751

4. Learned APP submitted that the Detaining Authority was aware about the fact that the Petitioner was in custody at the time of issuance of Order of Detention. In the grounds of detention it is stated that the Petitioner is in custody in connection with C.R. No. I-89/2022 and he has preferred an application for bail before the Court which is pending and he is in jail. It is also stated that considering Petitioner’s Modus Operandi, criminal tendencies and inclinations reflected in the offences committed by him, the Detaining Authority is satisfied that after granting bail, he being a free person and in the event of he being at large, he being a criminal, is likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, peace and tranquility in future and that with a view the prevent him from acting in such a prejudicial manner in future, it is extremely necessary to detain him under the said Act.

5. Learned APP has also relied upon the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the Detaining Authority wherein it is stated that the Detaining Authority was aware that the detenu was in judicial custody wh