Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 573 (BOM)

Pramila v. B. N. Mishra

2001-07-16

J.N.PATEL, P.V.HARDAS

body2001
JUDGMENT ORAL P.V. Hardas, J.- The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is mother of Bablul Hemant s/o Narayan Mohite, challenging the detention order passed under Section 3 of Slum Lords. Bootleggers. Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as M.P.D.A. Act). 2. We have heard Mr. Rajendra Daga for the petitioner and Mr. S.G. Lone, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Admittedly, the detention order has been passed on the basis of two criminal cases and three in-camera statements of the witnesses. The two criminal cases are in respect of Crime No. 3129 of 2000 registered by the Sakkardara Police Station, and Crime No. 375 of 1999, registered by the Kotwali Police Station. 3. Though several grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only ground on which stress had been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the son of the petitioner i.e. the detenu was arrested by the Sakkardara Police Station in respect of the offence registered on 29-6-2000 and the detenu was released on bail on 30-6-2000. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the fact that the detenu was on bail when the order of detention came to be passed, was not considered by the Detaining Authority and the copy of the order releasing the detenu on bail had not been furnished to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the return filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 in which it is contended that the Detaining Authority had knowledge that the detenu was on bail in Kotwali Police Station Crime No. 375/99 and in Sakkardara Police Station Crime No. 3129/2000. This is again reiterated by the first respondent by which it is stated that the detenu was released on bail on 30-6-2000 by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class. Corporation Court No.1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Daga, Has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Abdul Sattar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India1. This is again reiterated by the first respondent by which it is stated that the detenu was released on bail on 30-6-2000 by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class. Corporation Court No.1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Daga, Has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Abdul Sattar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India1. Our attention is invited to paragraph 12 of the Judgment in which the Apex Court has held as under- "In a case where detenu is released on bail and is at liberty at the time of passing the order of detention, then the detaining authority has to necessarily rely upon them as that would be a vital ground for ordering detention. In such a case the bail application and the order granting bail should necessarily be placed before the authority and the copies should also be supplied to the detenu." 5. Mr. Lone, the learned A.P.P. made the futile attempt supporting the detention order passed by the respondent No.1 on the ground that supplying of the application for bail would not germane only in the case where the offences is taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority. According to Mr. Lone, therefore, non-supply of the copy of the bail application to the petitioner would not vitiate the detention order. 6. We are unable to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the respondents in view of the fact that crime No. 3129/2000 registered by the Police Station. Sakkardara, had been taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned order. In fact, the Detaining Authority had not taken into consideration the fact that the detenu was released on bail and consequently also no copy of the order releasing the detenu on bail by the Court was furnished to the detenu. It is needless to say that the detention order in such circumstance stands vitiated as the detenu did not get an opportunity of making his representation and also had the bail application and the order releasing the detenu on bail been placed before the Detaining Authority the decision of the Detaining Authority could have been influenced. It is quite likely that the Detaining Authority would have taken into consideration the order releasing the detenu on bail before passing of the detention order. It is quite likely that the Detaining Authority would have taken into consideration the order releasing the detenu on bail before passing of the detention order. According to us therefore, the impugned order of detention passed by the first respondent is vitiated for non-application of mind. The detention order is further vitiated because the detenu was not supplied with the copies of the order of the Court by which he was released on bail. 7. In the result, therefore, the present petition succeeds and the order of detention dated 28-7-2000 passed by the first respondent and confirmed by the State Government on 21-9-2000, is quashed and set-aside, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other offence. Rule is made absolute in the above terms, with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. 1. AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 2261.