IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention orders must demonstrate subjective satisfaction regarding the imminent release of a detenue already in custody and must communicate grounds of detention in a comprehensible manner, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.S. SONAK, J. - Heard Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.S. Doifode learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the detention order dated 2/3/2021 made under the provisions of the 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 (the said Act), inter alia on the ground that the detenue (Sayed Noor Sayed Nasir) is a "dangerous person ".

3. Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pressed the following four grounds in support of the petition:

"(a) that, the detenue was already in custody when the impugned detention order was made; there was no application seeking bail made or pending before the appropriate court. The impugned detention order does not record any satisfaction on the issue that the release of the detenue was imminent. In the absence of the record of such satisfaction, the issue of the impugned detention order was illegal and ultra vires;

(b) That, the detenue understands only Hindi language. The impugned detention order was made in English language and the translation supplied to the detenue was in the Marathi language. This amounts to non-communication of the grounds of detention thereby breaching the mandate of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India;

(c) That the translation of certain portions of the grounds of detention were not at all supplied to the detenue. Such non-supply amounts to noncommunication of the ground of detention and consequently there is a breach of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.

(d) That certain relevant documents i.e. transcript of the "in camera statement " relied upon by the detaining authority and supplied to the detenue were illegible; Supply of illegible relevant and vital documents amounts to non-communication of the grounds of detention, thereby breaching the mandate of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India."

4. Mr. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State, submits that even though the detention order may not have made specific reference to the subjective satisfaction on the aspect of the imminent release of the detenue, there is ample material on record, based on which, such satisfaction can be said to have been validly reached by the detaining authority. He referred to the statements of some of the witnesses to submit that the detenue may not have been one of the main authors of the crimes in question since he was not the one who stabbed the victim.

5. Mr. Doifode submitted that this material was sufficient to conclude that the release of the detenue from custody was quite imminent and even though, the detaining authority may not have said so in the detention order. He relied on Kamarunnissa .vs. Union of India and another, (1991) 1 SCC 128 , Union of India and one .vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad, (2019) 20 SCC 609, Union of India through Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi .vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan, (2020) 16 SCC 185 and Sarjerao Pawar f/o Detenu Santosh @ Satya Sarjerao Pawar .vs. M.N. Singh, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2444, in support of these submissions.

6. Mr. Doifode referred to the certificate issued by the Principal of Zilla Parishad Madhymik Boys School, Amravati to submit that the detenue had studied Marathi as a second language during his education in the said school from standard 7th to 10th from 1999 to 2004. Based on this certificate, Mr. Doifode submitted that the petitioner had knowledge of the Marathi language and there was no infirmity in providing the translations in the Marathi language.

7. Mr. Doifode submitted that some translation errors do not vitiate the impugned detention order, particularly because the detenue neither pleaded nor established any prejudice. He relied on Pravin Ganpat Kakad .vs. Commissioner of Police, Nashik, 2021 LawSuit (Bom