B. S. KAPADIA, J. : -, J.

( 1 ) THE present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 4-10-1990 passed by the Commissioner of police, Ahmedabad city under Section 350 of asa exercised by the power conferred u/s. 350 of the Act, against the present petitioner. The petitioner was supplied with the grounds of detention on the same day.

( 2 ) ON perusal of the grounds it appears that the petitioner is detained as he was a dangerous person as defined under Section 2 (c) of thepasa act, 1985. In a tabular form it is shown that he was involved in five criminal cases under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Further the statements of 4 persons are recorded, but the detaining authority has exercised privilege under Section 9 (2) of the Act in the public interest by not disclosing the names and addresses of the said persons whose statements are recorded. The petitioner is also supplied with the said statements without the names and addresses of the persons. The detaining authority has also considered the less drastic remedy under Section 56 (b) of the Bombay Police Act. Therefore, the competent authority, on the basis of the material placed before him, was subjectively satisfied about the necessity of detaining the present petitioner. The detaining authority also considered the fact that the petitioner was in custody as he was involved in C. R. No. 604/90 for the offences punishable under Sections 393, 323 as well as under Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act on the ground that at any time can be released on bail and he may continue his criminal anti-social activities.

( 3 ) VARIOUS grounds have been raised in the petition and few more are added by amending the petition. The last two grounds were added at the time of hearing on 24th January 1991 and this being writ petition against the detention order, the petitioner was permitted to raise the said two grounds.

( 4 ) AT the time of hearing Mr. M. C. Kapadia, learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly raised two grounds before us. The first ground is that though the petitioner was in custody, he is detained without considering that if at all he was to be released on bail, the bail application could have been opposed and even if the bail order was granted, that could have been challenged and or the application for cancellation of the bail could have been made.

( 5 ) THE second ground which is raised is that in the five cases which are shown in the tabular form in the grounds for detention, three cases are already pending trial and two are pending investiagation. So far as the three cases are concerned they, are : (1) C. R. No. 111/89 registered at amraiwadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 324, 504, 114 of indian Penal Code as well as under Section 135 ( 1) of the Bombay Police Act and the said offence was alleged to have been committed on 25th february 1989; (2) C. R. No. 196/89 registered at amraiwadi Police Station with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 324,504,114 of I. P. C. as well as Section 135 (1) of the Bombay police Act and the said offence was alleged to have been committed on 14th April 1989; (3) c. R. No. 297/89 of the same police station for the similar offences in C. R. No. 196/89 alleged to have been committed on 13th June 1989.

( 6 ) THE other two cases are pending investigation. Out of the said two cases, one is pending investigation being C. R. No. 604/90 of amraiwadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 393, 323 of IPC as well as Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act which is alleged to have been committed on 27th September 1990. The last one is N. C. complaint No. 1152/90 in respect of the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC alleged to have been committed on 14th September 1990.

( 7 ) WHAT was submitted earlier at the time of argument was that the statements of the witnesses shown in the chargeshee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document