JUDGMENT - Smt. DESAI RANJANA, J.:---The petitioner is detained under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 under an order of detention issued by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur dated 8-8-2002. The said order along with the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof was served on the petitioner on the same day i.e. 8-8-2002. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of detention. 2. The order of detention is based on C.R. No 18 of 2002 registered at Salgar Wasti Police Station under section 307 read with sections 34, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The order of detention is also passed on the basis of two in-camera statements; one dated 18-6-2002 and another dated 20-6-2002. On the basis of C.R. No. 18 of 2002 and on the basis of the in-camera statements, the Detaining Authority has recorded his satisfaction that the petitioner is a weapon wielding desperado and thereby become perpetual and potential danger to the society at large. He has further stated that the petitioner has created terror in the localities and areas in question of Salgar Wasti Police Station in Solapur and that the people in the said localities and areas are experiencing a sense of insecurity and are living and carrying out their daily avocation under a constant shadow of fear, whereby even tempo of life of citizens in the said area is badly disturbed. It is further stated that the said activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the said areas. 3. Paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention is material as Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has based his submissions on it. We may quote paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention: "6 I have carefully gone through the material placed before me and I am subjectively satisfied that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. I am aware that you have been granted bail in Salgar Wasti Police Station C.R. No. 18/2002, under sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. r/w sections 4, 25-AA and you have availed this facility, but till today you are in Magisterial Custody in other offences. However, I have reason to believe that you will be released in future. I am aware that you have been granted bail in Salgar Wasti Police Station C.R. No. 18/2002, under sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. r/w sections 4, 25-AA and you have availed this facility, but till today you are in Magisterial Custody in other offences. However, I have reason to believe that you will be released in future. In view of your tendencies and inclinations reflected in the offences committed by you as stated above, I am satisfied that after availing the bail facility, being a criminal, you are likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and that it is necessary to detain you under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amendment 1996) to prevent you from acting in such a prejudicial manner in future". 4. Mr. Tripathi urged that in C.R. No. 18 of 2002, the petitioner was released on bail and he availed of the bail facility. According to the Detaining Authority, the petitioner was in custody in other offences. When a person is in custody, the Detaining Authority has to set out the compelling necessity to issue the detenting order though the said person is in custody. Mr. Tripati urged that in this case, though the Detaining Authority has stated that the petitioner is in Magisterial custody in other offences and he has reason to believe that he will be released in future, this assertion is not supported by any material which is placed before the Detaining Authority. It is a very vague statement. No particulars about the other offences were placed before the Detaining Authority. Therefore, the Detaining Authority could not have been satisfied about the compelling necessity. 5. As against that, Mr. Kantharia, the learned A.P.P. contended that not only that the Detaining Authority has stated in the grounds of detention the compelling necessity but it is also borne out by the material in support of the grounds of detention. She drew our attention to paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority. 5. As against that, Mr. Kantharia, the learned A.P.P. contended that not only that the Detaining Authority has stated in the grounds of detention the compelling necessity but it is also borne out by the material in support of the grounds of detention. She drew our attention to paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority. In that paragraph, the Detaining Authority has stated that at the time of issuance of the detention order, the detenu was in Magisterial custody with regard to the cases pending and registered against him at the Railway Police Station, Solapur and the awareness of the said fact that the detenu was in the custody or railway cases is also mentioned in the detention order. It is submitted that although the detenu was in custody in respect of the offences pending in the Railway Court, all those offences were old offences i.e. registered in the years 1994 to 2000 and most of the offences were Magistrate triable where the bail is usually granted as a matter of course. It is submitted that the detenu was already on bail in respect of those cases and, therefore, there was every possibility of detenu getting himself released on bail and upon becoming a free person was likely to be indulged in the similar prejudicial activities". Ms. Kantharia also drew our attention to letter dated 3-8-2002 addressed by the Superintendent of Solapur District Jail to the Commissioner of Police, Solapur, stating that there are 15 cases pending against the petitioner. Ms. Kantharia urged that therefore, the apprehension expressed by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention that the detenu was likely to be released on bail is justified. 6. We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned A.P.P. First of all, we find that the averments made in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention to be very vague and devoid of particulars. The Detaining Authority has stated that the petitioner is in Magisterial custody in other offences. No particulars of the offences have been given. We fail to understand as to how the Detaining Authority, without knowing the nature of these cases, has come to know that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail. The Detaining Authority has stated that the petitioner is in Magisterial custody in other offences. No particulars of the offences have been given. We fail to understand as to how the Detaining Authority, without knowing the nature of these cases, has come to know that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail. In paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit, the Detaining Authority has stated that the petitioner is in custody in respect of the offences pending in the Railway Court and most of the offences are old and Magistrate triable cases where bail is usually granted as a matter of course. However, barring the letter dated 3-8-2002, there was no material before the Detaining Authority from which he could have got to know about the nature of the pending cases. This letter dated 3-8-2002 merely states that 15 cases are pending against the petitioner. It does not give the nature of those cases. It does not categorically state that they are pending in Railway Courts. Therefore, it appears that the assertion made by the Detaining Authority in paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit is based on some extraneous material. 7. In (Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat another v. Union of India others)1, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1196, the Supreme Court considered as to when an order of detention could be issued against a person who is already in custody. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court may be quoted. "19. The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before the Detaining Authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities." 8. We may apply the above principles to the facts of this case. It is true that the Detaining Authority has shown his awareness that the petitioner was in custody. He has also stated that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail but, there was no cogent material before the Detaining Authority on the basis of which he could be satisfied that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail in future. There is no indication in the grounds of detention as to the nature of cases pending against the petitioner. The words "other offences" are too vague. In the material in support of the order of detention, the particulars of these cases are absent. We have already noted that the letter dated 3-8-2002 does not convey the exact nature of the cases which are pending against the petitioner. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the present detention order cannot stand the scrutiny of this Court. The compelling necessity is not borne out by the material in support of the grounds of detention. The satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority as regards compelling necessity is based on non-existent material and hence is not genuine. In this view of the matter, the present detention order will have to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the following order: ORDER "The petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 8-8-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur, impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside. The petitioner Sunil Bajrang Gaikwad be released from detention forthwith unless he is required in some other case". Petition allowed. -----