SAHIDALI JAKIRALI SAYED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition which has been preferred from jail by the Petitioner - detenu Sahidali Jakirali Sayyed, it is prayed that the order dated 2/1/2001 passed by Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981 (Amendment - 1996) (hereinafter referred to as the M. P. D. A. Act) be quashed. The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 2/1/2001, was served on the petitioner - detenu on 5/1/2001 and their true copies have been annexed to the writ petition.

(2.) A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on one C. R. namely C. R. No. 386 of 2000 under sections 399, 402 r/w 3, r/w 25 (1-B) (a) r/w 35, 4, r/w 25 (1-B) (b) of Indian Arms Act and section 37 (1) (a) r/w 135 of the Bombay Police Act registered on the basis of a complaint dated 28/7/2000 lodged by police constable Sanjay Kashinath Shirke at Vakola police station and in - camera statements of two witnesses namely A and B, which were recorded on 20/9/2000 and 21/9/2000 respectively.

(3.) GROUND no. 13 has been replied to in para 2 of the second return of the detaining authority which is dated 29/10/2001. In short, the detaining authority has stated therein as under : - (a) He was aware that the detenu was in judicial custody in C. R. No. 386 of 2000; (b) He had reason to believe that sooner or later, he may be granted bail in C. R. No. 386 of 2000 because, he had preferred a bail application in the said C. R. which had been rejected by the Court of Sessions for non prosecution and thereafter, had again preferred a bail application before the Court of Sessions which was rejected and two of the co-accused persons in the said C. R. were released on bail and there was no impediment in his way in preferring another application for bail; and (c) He was satisfied that in the event of the detenu being released on bail in C. R. No. 386 of 2000, he was likely to revert to committing prejudicial activities similar to those set out in the grounds of detention.