The court established that the failure to consider an anticipatory bail order when issuing a detention order under the M.P.D. Act vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, thereby violating the rights of the Detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. - Petitioner is the wife of Detenu Pappu @ Avinash Vasant Kadu (hereinafter referred to as Detenu). The petitioner has challenged Order of Detention dated 11th February, 2022 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981. (for short 'M.P.D. Act'). The impugned Order of Detention and the grounds of detention were served upon the Detenu alongwith the documents.

2. The impugned Order of Detention is purportedly issued with a view to prevent the Detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

3. The grounds of detention stipulates the offences considered for passing of Detention Order. The Detaining Authority has relied upon two crimes. C.R. No.162 of 2021 registered with Kothrud Police Station on 4th August, 2021 for offences under Sections 435, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 4(25) of the Arms Act. C.R. No.171 of 2021 was registered with Khothrud Police Station on 14th August, 2021 for offences under Sections 353, 225, 143, 506 and 34 of IPC. Apart from the aforesaid cases the Detaining Authority has also relied upon statements of two witnesses recorded in camera. The said witnesses are referred to as Witness -A and Witness-B. The Witness-A has referred to alleged incident dated 25th November, 2021 and Witness-B makes reference to statement dated 10th December, 2021. In Paragraph No.8 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the material mentioned in Paragraph No.5.1, 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2 of the ground of detention to arrive at his subjective satisfaction that Detenu is a dangerous person as defined in Paragraph No.2(b-1) of the M.P.D. Act and his criminal activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Shailesh Kharat appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Order of Detention has been challenged on several grounds. The main grounds of challenge are as follows;

i. The Detenu had preferred an application for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No.171 of 2021 registered with Kothrud Police Station, Pune City. The said application was allowed vide order dated 8th December, 2021. The order granting anticipatory bail was not placed before the Detaining Authority and not supplied to the Detenu. This has affected the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and Detenu's right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India.

ii. The Detenu has been supplied the documents alongwith order of grounds of detention. Some of the documents are illegible. Supply of illegible documents has affected right of Detenu to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India.

iii. The Detaining Authority has referred to past antecedents and old cases registered against the Detenu. It was not necessary for Detaining Authority to rely upon old and stale cases.

5. In support of the first ground of challenge the learned Advocate Mr. Kharat has submitted that, the order granting anticipatory bail to the Detenu was vital and important document. The said order was not placed before the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority. It was a detailed order and it contains conditions while allowing the application for anticipatory bail. Therefore, it was necessary for the Sponsoring Authority to place the said order before Detaining Authority. Neither the detailed Order dated 8th December, 2020 nor the operative part of the Order was placed before Detaining Authority. The Order is also not supplied to the Detenu. The Detaining Authority is not aware that the Detenu was granted anticipatory bail in C.R. No.171 of 2021 registered with Kothrud Police Station, Pune City. Hence in Paragraph