PAVANKUMAR RAJMAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) xxx xxx xxx.

(3.) The petitioners have challenged the order of detention on various grounds, but while arguing the matter, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has confined his arguments only on one point and agitated legal issue that the petitioners are not supplied with all the documents referred to and relied upon by the detaining authority while recording the subjective satisfaction as to the detention of the petitioners. It is pointed out by referring to relevant part of the orders of detention wherein the detaining authority has stated specifically that the orders of detention are passed as they are released on bail by the competent Court in connection with the offences registered against them in the police station. The petitioners are allegedly found involved in the offences punishable under Section 3 R/W Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and on the strength of the FIR lodged in Amraiwadi Police Station, Police has registered offence as CR No. II 3047/ 2000. It is argued that the competent authority has recorded that the authority apprehends that the petitioners will indulge in similar types of activities as they are released on bail. It can be legitimately argued, by the petitioners that had the application for bail preferred by the petitioners not been granted, the detaining authority would not have passed the orders of detentions against the petitioners. It is argued that the FIR, application for bail preferred by the petitioners, order of the competent authority granting bail to the petitioners are the documents which are required to be supplied to the petitioners which in the instant case, are not supplied and, therefore, the impugned orders of detention are unjust, illegal, improper and require to be quashed and set aside.