Preventive detention requires strict scrutiny of grounds; placing inadequate documentation before the Detaining Authority vitiates the order.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the rival parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.09.2021, passed by the respondent no.2 – District Magistrate, Akola under Section 3 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 (hereinafter referred to as “the MPDI Act” for short), detaining the petitioner for a period of one year, as also the order dated 08.11.2021, passed by the respondent no.1 – State of Maharashtra, confirming the said order of detention passed by respondent no.2.

3. Mr. A.M. Tirukh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (detenue) raised various grounds of challenge while seeking quashment of these two orders. Firstly, it was submitted that the copies of relevant documents were not placed before the Detaining Authority, thereby indicating that subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority while passing the order dated 21.09.2021 stood vitiated. Under this ground, various shades have been highlighted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that in the first place, entire copy of the order granting bail to the petitioner in respect of a particular offence, upon which the detention order was based, were not placed before the Detaining Authority. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, placing only the operative portion of the bail order was not enough as the reasons for granting such bail were clearly a relevant consideration for the Detaining Authority before reaching the conclusion that the petitioner ought to be detained. It was further submitted that perusal of the impugned order would show that although specific reliance was placed on only two offences registered against the petitioner i.e. crime nos. 810/2021 and 252/2021, in the impugned order at paragraph 10, the Detaining Authority has specifically referred to the fact that the petitioner had been granted bail in all the cases mentioned in the detention order. It was submitted that there were as many as 13 earlier cases specifically stated in the detention order and therefore, the bail orders pertaining to all these cases ought to have been placed before the Detaining Authority. In support of said contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the cases of Elizabeth Ranibhai Prabhudas Gaikwad .vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2021 All M.R. (Cri.) 1394 ; Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik .vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2261 ; Sunil Pandharinath Dhotre .vs. The Commissioner of Police, Nashik and others, reported in 2021 All M.R. (Cri.) 2859 ; and Ratnamala Mukund Balkhande and others .vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Judgment and order dated 01.07.2022 in Cri. Writ Petition No. 820 of 2021).

4. The second ground raised on behalf of the petitioner was that there was no live link between the offences, upon which reliance was placed, and the detention order, considering the time gap between the two. It was emphasized that while the first case was registered as far back as on 01.04.2021 and the second case was registered on 01.07.2021, the detention order was passed much later on 21.09.2021. It was submitted that the statements of the witnesses appear to have been recorded only to fill the gap