A detention order can be validly issued against a person in custody if the authority is aware of the custody status, believes there is a risk of release on bail, and that the individual might engage in further harmful activities.

JUDGMENT :

( Per : A. S. Gadkari, J.)

1) Petitioner, i.e. mother of detenue, namely Sanket @ Khoonkhar Dadya Nandu Toradmal, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the Detention Order dated 11^th November 2024, bearing No. D.O.2024/MPDA/DET-14/CB-395, issued by the Respondent No.2, the Commissioner of Police, Nashik (City), Nashik, under Section 3(2) 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 (Maha.Act No.LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996, 2009 and 2015) (for short “MPDA Act” ). The Respondent No.2 has also passed Committal Order of even date, directing the detenue to be detained in Central Prison, Nashik Road, Nashik.

2) Heard Smt. Ansari, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Smt. Mhatre, learned APP for Respondent, State. Perused entire record produced before us and the Affidavits of the Respondents/Authorities.

3) Smt. Ansari, learned Advocate for Petitioner assailed the Detention Order dated 11^th November 2024 on the following three grounds :

(i) That, the Detention Order along with Committal Order of even date was served upon the Petitioner on 12^th November 2024 in jail. That, on 13^th November 2024, the Petitioner was served with the Grounds of Detention along with compilation of documents relied upon in English as well as Marathi language. At the time when the Petitioner was taken into detention, he was not communicated by the Detaining Authority i.e. Respondent No.2, the reasons for his detention and therefore the Detention Order is vitiated on the said count.

(ii) That, though the Respondent No.2, the detaining Authority has shown its awareness that, at the time of issuance of Detention Order, the Petitioner was in judicial custody, yet the detaining Authority has failed to bear in his mind and had failed to have recorded his satisfaction to the effect, as to whether any reliable material was placed before him and there was an imminent likelihood of the Petitioner being released on bail.

(iii) That, the medical certificate of the victim in C.R. No. 273 of 2024, dated 15^th September 2024, registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik, was not placed before the Respondent No.2 i.e. detaining Authority, before passing the Order of detention and therefore the satisfaction reached by the detaining Authority regarding veracity of the statement of injured therein that, he suffered injury on his forehead due to the assault of knife by the Petitioner is based on non application of mind. That, the said injury certificate has not been supplied to the Petitioner with the compilation of documents and therefore the right of the Petitioner to make an effective representation with the competent Authority, is impaired and therefore also the Order of detention is vitiated.

4) As far as the first point i.e. non supply of the Grounds of Detention along with relied upon documents in English as well as Marathi language upon the Petitioner on 12^th November 2024 is concerned, Section 8(1) of the MPDA Act states that, when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government.

4.1) In the present case, admittedly the Order of Detention was served upon the Petitioner on 12^th November 2024, when he was in judicial custody in C.R. No. 273 of 2024, registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik and the Grounds of Detention along with compilati