RAMESH VALLABHBHAI LUHANA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner and Mr. Jani, learned AGP for the respondent State. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention dated 19th December, 2000 passed by the detaining authority under section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 ("the PASA Act" for short). The grounds of detention have been communicated to the petitioner under section 9(1) of the PASA Act and the petitioner has been detained at Vadodara Jail as Class II Detenu. As per the grounds of detention, the petitioner has been involved in seven registered offences and the date of the last offence registered against the detenu is 7th November, 2000. The statements of the secret witnesses as recorded on 13.12.2000 were verified by the detaining authority on 14.12.2000. As per the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu, the detenu has been involved in two unregistered offence dated 15.10.2000 and 23.9.2000. As per the grounds of detention, at the time of passing of the impugned order of detention, the detenu was in judicial custody in respect of the offence registered at Sr. No.3. There was, therefore, no material available with the detaining authority to form apprehension that the petitioner is likely to be released by the competent court on bail in connection with the said offence. As per the representation dated 29.1.2001 made by the petitioner, he has made a request to supply certain documents as per para 3 of the representation at page 40. As per the communication dated 19.2.2001, the detaining authority has given reply to the detenu that the statements of the co-accused Pankaj Babu and Ravji Kala Rathod has been supplied to the petitioner but all the statements have not been supplied as demanded by the petitioner. In this petition, the respondents have not filed any reply.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Dave has raised various contentions while challenging the impugned order of detention. However, according to him, two contentions are enough for setting aside the impugned order of detention. He has submitted that at the time of passing the impugned order of detention, the petitioner was in judicial custody in respect of the offence at Sr.No.3 and there was no cogent material available with the detaining authority to believe that the petitioner will be enlarged on bail by the competent court. Therefore, in absence of such material, detaining authority is not justified in detaining the petitioner while in custody. He has submitted that the detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner. He has relied upon the following decisions: