JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Velmurgan @ Babloo Nallyan Devendra has impugned the order dated 7-8-2001 passed by the first respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996). The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 7-8-2001 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 9-8-2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexure A and B respectively to this petition. 2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure B) would show that the impugned order is founded on one C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 260 of 2001 under sections 387, 506(2) I.P.C. registered on the basis of complaint dated 1-6-2001 lodged by Anandurai Subramani Devendra at Antop Hill Police Station and in-camera statement of two witnesses namely A and B which were recorded on 22-6-2001. Since in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu contained in the said C.R. and in-camera statements is not necessary for the adjudication of sole ground pressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner-detenu i.e. ground No. 6(B) we are not adverting to them. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Ground No. 6(B) in short is that when the impugned detention order was issued against the petitioner-detenu, he was in custody in C.R. No. 260 of 2001; there was no cogent material with the first respondent indicating that he was likely to be released from custody innear future in the said C.R.; and consequently the impugned detention order is unwarranted in law. Ground No. 6(B) has been replied to in para 8 of the return of the Detaining Authority. In short, his reply therein is as under:--- He was aware that the detenu was in custody in C.R. No. 260 of 2001 and this awareness is manifest from para 7 of the grounds of detention wherein it is specifically mentioned that the detenu has not been granted bail. Since the said C.R. was registered under sections 387, 506(2) I.P.C., the detenu in the event of his preferring an application for bail would have been granted bail under the normal law of the land. Since the said C.R. was registered under sections 387, 506(2) I.P.C., the detenu in the event of his preferring an application for bail would have been granted bail under the normal law of the land. In view of the tendencies and inclinations of the detenu reflected in the offences committed by him, he was subjectively satisfied that in the event of being granted bail, the detenu was likely to revert to committing prejudicial activities similar to those contained in the grounds of detention and hence, it was imperative to detain him under the impugned order. The Detaining Authority has also averred that there was cogent material to show that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in the said C.R. in near future and there were compelling reasons to preventively detain him vide the impugned order. 4. We have perused the averments contained in ground No. 6(B) of the petition, those contained in para 8 of the return of the Detaining Authority wherein the said ground has been replied to and heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It is well-settled that a detention order can be issued against a person in custody provided:--- (a) the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention shows his awareness that he is in custody; (b) there should be cogent material before the Detaining Authority indicating imminent likelyhood of his being released from custody in near future; and (c) there should be sufficient material in the grounds of detention to warrant the inference that in the event of being released from custody, he was likely to revert to committing prejudicial activities similar to those contained in the grounds of detention. 6. Mr. Tripathi fairly does not dispute that pre-requisites (a) and (c) are reflected from the grounds of detention. He however, strenuously urged that pre-requisite (b) is not satisfied. He contended that since the petitioner detenu had not preferred any bail application in C.R. No. 260 of 2001 the averments in para 8 of the return of the Detaining Authority that there was cogent material indicating that he was likely to be released on bail in near future is unwarranted. Mr. Tripathi urged that the offence under section 387 I.P.C.; which offence is registered under C.R. No. 260 of 2001 is a serious offence and courts are loathe to grant bail in it. 7. We have considered the submission of Mr. Mr. Tripathi urged that the offence under section 387 I.P.C.; which offence is registered under C.R. No. 260 of 2001 is a serious offence and courts are loathe to grant bail in it. 7. We have considered the submission of Mr. Tripathi and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merity in it. 8. The offence under section 387 I.P.C. is punishable with sentence which may extend to seven years. It is pertinent to mention that even a Magistrate in such an offence has the powers to grant bail and our experience is that he invariably grants bail. In that view of the matter, we find merit in the averments contained in para 8 of the return of the Detaining Authority in terms that in the event of the detenu preferring bail application in the said C.R. he was likely to be released on bail in near future. 9. In our judgment, there was cogent material before the Detaining Authority to have concluded that there was imminent likelyhood of the detenu being released on bail in near future. In such a situation, we do not accept Mr. Tripathi's submission. 10. In our judgment, all the pre-requisites enjoined by law before a person in custody can be preventively detained are satisfied in the instant case and the impugned detention order does not suffer from any infirmity. Although Mr. Tripathi has also pleaded four other grounds in the petition namely ground Nos. 6(A), 6(C), 6(D), and 6(E) but, he has not pressed the said grounds. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this petition and discharge the rule. Petition dismissed. -----