The main legal point established is that the impugned detention order was based on specific cases and witness statements, and the delay in issuing the order was properly explained by the detaining Authority.

JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. - Petitioner has been detained under the Provisions of 'Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlord, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and persons engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981' (hereinafter referred to M.P.D.A. Act) vide detention Order dated 21st February 2022 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City. The impugned Order of detention has issued with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner dangerous to health and life of people and prejudicial to the maintenance of public Order. Petitioner has preferred this writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid order of detention.

2. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Gaware has submitted as under:-

(i) The detaining Authority has considered the list of offences registered against the Petitioner by State Excise Department vide C.R. No. 120 of 2020 dated 21st November 2020, C.R. No. 65 of 2021 dated 22nd May 2021, C.R. No. 87 of 2021 dated 16th July 2021 and C.R. No. 110 of 2021 dated 9th September 2021. Petitioner was arrested in these cases and was released on bail. However, the Orders granting bail to the Petitioner in all aforesaid cases were neither placed before the detaining Authority and not supplied to the detenu. Non-placement of the Orders granting bail has affected subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority and non-supplying of said Orders to the Petitioner/detenu has affected the rights of the detenu to make effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.

(ii) There has been delay in passing the Order of detention. There is unexplained delay of five months in issuing impugned Order of detention. C.R. No. 87 of 2021 was registered on 16th July 2021 under Section 65 (e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Petitioner was arrested and granted bail on the same day. C.R. No.110 of 2021 was registered on 9th September 2021 for offences under Sections 328 and 34 of the IPC and Section 65(a), 65(e) and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and section 2(a)(6) of the Poison Act, 1919. Petitioner was arrested on 13th September 2021 and granted bail on 14th September 2021. The statement of witnesses A, B, C and D were recorded on 11th November 2021, 16th November 2021, 20th November 2021 and 28th November 2021 respectively. Witness A has referred to the incident dated 22nd September 2021. Witness B has referred to alleged incident of fourth weeks of September 2021. Witness C has not specified exact day of incident. Witness D had referred to incident which had allegedly occurred 4 months prior to date of recording statement. The Order of detention was issued on 21st February 2022. The Detaining Authority has not explained the time consumed for issuing the Order of detention. The delay has snapped the live link between the alleged incidents and need for passing Order of detention.

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

(i) Namrata Avinash Kadu Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 7366

(ii) Judgment dated 12th August 2022 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 454 of 2022 in the case of Shri. Pandurang @ Panda Narayan Garud Vs. The District Magistrate, Pune and Ors.

(iii) Alakshit Vs. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 7439.

(iv) Ratnamala Mukund Balkhande Vs. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1386.

(v) Shivkumar Madeshwaran Devendra Vs. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1236.

(vi) Sachin Parshuram Mane Vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1235.

4. Learned APP submitted that the grounds urged by Petitioner are devoid of merits. As far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, the detaining Authority has not relied upon the cases reflected in paragraph 3 of grounds of detention. The questions of supplying bail Orders in respect to those cases does not arise. In paragraph 4