The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Detaining Authority to have reliable material and reason to believe in the possibility of the detenu being released on bail and engaging in prejudicial activity as essential for issuing an Order of Detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981.

JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. - Petitioner assails the Order of Detention dated 18th 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 Order of Detention is bad in law. The Detaining Authority was aware that the Petitioner was already in judicial custody without availing bail in C.R. No.I-95/2022. However, the Detaining Authority has not disclosed any possibility of release on bail. 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 its satisfaction in the grounds of detention as to the imminent possibility of detenu's released 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 what so ever. In reality Petitioner was granted bail by Sessions Court, Thane vide Order dated 30th November, 2022 i.e. after a period of about six months from date of Order of Detention.

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

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

2. Kamarunnissa V/s. Union of India and another, (1991) 1 SCC 128.

3. Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh V/s. S.N. Sinha, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and another, (1989) 2 SCC 222.

4. Binod Singh V/s. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar and another, (1986) 4 SCC 416.

5. A. Shanthi (SMT) V/s. Govt. of T. N. and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 711.

6. Smt. Suman Sudhakar Jadhav V/s. The Commissioner of Police Thane & Ors., delivered by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3977 of 2017 dated 20th December, 2017.

7. Shri. Manmoorat R. Pandey V/s. The Commissioner of Police, Thane and Ors., delivered by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1001 of 2022 dated 4th August, 2022.

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-95/2022 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. Learned APP has also relied upon the contents of Affidvait-in-reply filed by the Detaining Authority wherein it is stated that the Petitioner has applied for bail in C.R. No.I-95/2022 and he is in jail. It shows that the Petitioner has tried to get released on bail. He is making efforts to get bail in the case. Petitioner may be granted bail under normal law of the land at any time as the offence is not compulsorily