Non-compliance with the requirement of placing bail orders before the detaining authority vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the authority, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - 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 petition, the Petitioner has challenged order dated 27.12.2021, passed by the Respondent no.2 - Collector/District Magistrate, Akola, under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short, 'the MPDA Act'), whereby the Petitioner has been detained for a period of one year. Order dated 04.02.2022, passed by the Respondent no.1 - Secretary, Home Department (Special) is also challenged, whereby the order of detention passed by the Respondent no.2 stood confirmed.

3. Although there are various grounds of challenge raised in the present writ petition, Shri M. N. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner highlighted that a perusal of the impugned detention order, would show that reference is made to as many as five crimes registered against the Petitioner. Although, specific reference is made to three crimes, in a table stated in paragraph 3 of the impugned detention order, reference is made to all the five crimes and in paragraph 10 of the impugned detention order, it is specifically observed that the detaining authority was aware that the Petitioner was enlarged on bail in all the cases.

4. It was submitted that in crimes at serial nos.1 and 2 in the chart in paragraph 3 of the detention order, the Petitioner was issued notices under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), but he was not put under arrest. Insofar as crimes at serial nos.3 to 5 are concerned, the Petitioner was arrested and subsequently released on bail. Insofar as crime at serial no.3 is concerned i.e. Crime No.910 of 2021, only the operative portion of the bail order was placed before the detaining authority and admittedly, insofar as crimes at serial nos.4 and 5 i.e. Crime nos.232 of 2020 and 149 of 2015 are concerned, neither the bail applications nor the bail orders passed in favour of the Petitioner, were placed before the detaining authority. It was further submitted that non supply of the bail orders to the detaining authority vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the authority, while issuing the impugned detention order. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite ..Vrs.. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012 ALL SCR 1373 and the judgments of this Court in the cases of Harish @ Sarjerao Baban Takele ..Vrs.. The District Magistrate, Sangli and others, 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 516, Ratnamala Mukund Balkhande ..Vrs.. State of Maharashtra and others, (judgment and order dated 01.07.2022, passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.820 of 2021) and Shakir Khan Zakir Khan ..Vrs.. State of Maharashtra and another (judgment and order dated 14.07.2022, passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.916 of 2021).

5. Shri M. J. Khan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondents opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner and invited attention of this Court to Section 5-A of the MPDA Act, submitting that even if one of the grounds of the detention order could be said to be unsustainable, the entire detention order need not be set aside, if it could be sustained on other grounds, which would be severed from the ground on which, this Court was in favour of the Petitioner. It was further submitted that there was no prejudice demonstrated by the Petitioner, due to the fact that the bail orders were not placed before the detaining authority, when the impugned detention order was issued. On this basis, it was submitted that the detention order did not deserve interference, particularly looking to the crime history of the Petitioner before this Court.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and we have perused the material on record. Before advert