JUDGMENT : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. Heard Ms. V.V. Tiwari, learned Counsel holding for Shri R.R. Rajkarne, Advocate for petitioner and Shri V.A. Thakare, learned A.P.P. for respondents. 2. Short submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in absence of live link, detention order dated 10.09.2016 cannot be sustained. She also states that non application of mind is apparent because the in camera statements of Witnesses B and C relied upon to order detention are fabricated and false. Those witnesses complain of incidence taking place in last week of April, 2016, while the petitioner was in custody from 18.03.2016 to 07.05.2016 in Crime No.55/2016. 3. Support is being taken from Division Bench judgment dated 09.01.2014 passed in the matter of present petitioner only (Criminal Writ Petition No. 627/2013) to urge need of live link. 4. Learned A.P.P. is supporting the order. He relies upon the reply affidavit and states that offence committed in last week of April, 2016 are brought on record by two in camera witnesses and those offences along with other crimes are looked into. He further adds that even if there is some substance in the contention that in last week of April 2016, petitioner was not out of custody, still the other material is sufficient to sustain the application of mind. 5. In camera statements are appearing in paragraph no.8 of the reasons/grounds supplied to the petitioner. In paragraph no.4 earlier crimes committed by him are mentioned, those crimes are of the years 2010 to 2012. Two preventive actions under Section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code are of the years 2010 to 2014. 6. Though in paragraph no.9.4 statements find mention. Witness A speaks of an incident which has taken place in first week of February, 2016. Witness B speaks of an incident allegedly taken place in last week of April, 2016. Witness C also speaks of an incident taken place in last week of April, 2016. Witness D speaks of an incident which has taken place in second week of March, 2016. 7. Before adverting to these in camera statements, the detaining authority has at the end of paragraph no.9 in bold letters recorded that the Detaining Authority has verified from Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaripatka Division, Nagpur and that authority has confirmed whole facts in statements verified by him. 8. 7. Before adverting to these in camera statements, the detaining authority has at the end of paragraph no.9 in bold letters recorded that the Detaining Authority has verified from Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaripatka Division, Nagpur and that authority has confirmed whole facts in statements verified by him. 8. Paragraph no.8.2 is in relation to Crime No.55/2016 under Sections 420, 447, 506B of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Yashodhara Nagar. Paragraph no.8.2.1 shows that petitioner was taken in custody on 18.03.2016 itself and paragraph no. 8.2.3 shows that he was enlarged on bail on 07.05.2016. Thus, he was not a free citizen and was in custody of State from 18.03.2016 till 07.05.2016. 9. The Authority which has ordered detention and claims that has applied mind, has overlooked this aspect. Thus, facts militating with 2 in camera statements of Witnesses B and C apparent from the impugned order have not been looked into by the detaining authority. 10. Learned A.P.P. has made available a sealed envelope containing those in camera statements for perusal of this Court. There at the top of each statement, Witness number as A or B or C or D has been mentioned. It is apparent that in camera statement shown as of witness 'C' in paragraph no.9.3 in the impugned order, is in reality the in camera statement of Witness B in sealed envelope. Similarly, in camera statement mentioned of Witness B in paragraph 9.4 is infact the in camera statement of Witness C taken out from that sealed envelope. Thus, while mentioning witness numbers also there is mistake and a wrong person has been projected as Witness B or Witness C, as the case may be. This also therefore shows non application of mind. 11. Total material available on record has been looked into and it is apparent from the first sentence in paragraph no.10 of the impugned order of detention. It mentions that in the light of above offences and incident mentions in paragraph no.8 to 9.4.3, the Detaining Authority is subjectively satisfied that the petitioner is a dangerous person as defined under 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. 12. The in camera statements are recorded either on 11.07.2016 or on 15.07.2016. 12. The in camera statements are recorded either on 11.07.2016 or on 15.07.2016. They have been verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 19.07.2016. 13. In view of this material, we find no substance in the contention of learned A.P.P. that the order of detention can be sustained on the basis of other material on record. Petitioner was in custody till 07.05.2016. The incidences sought to be brought on record are either prior to 18.03.2016 or then of a period during which he could not have indulged in it, as he was in custody. Events of last week of April, 2016 are apparently relied upon to show commission of offences in recent past and to substantiate "live link." Thus, impart of release on bail from custody on 07.05.2016 which needed due evaluation, also does not figure in the order. 14. As we are satisfied that subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority is unsustainable, we quash and set aside the said order of detention dated 10.09.2016 passed by the Detaining Authority and later order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the State Government approving it. Petitioner be released from custody forthwith, if he is not required in any other matter by the State. 15. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.