VISHAL WAMAN MHATRE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who is the brother of the detenue is seeking a writ of habeas corpus for challenging the order dated 24th April, 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, [Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates] Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). By the said order, the detenue was directed to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has us taken through the grounds supplied to the detenue in accordance with Section 8 of the said Act. He invited our attention to the various grounds of challenge in the Petition. He pointed out that the first ground of challenge has been set out in Ground (a). He submitted that crucial parts of the grounds which are in English language have been omitted while translating the same into Marathi language. He pointed out that substantial portions of certain paragraphs in the grounds have been omitted in the Marathi translation supplied to the detenue. He, therefore, submitted that furnishing of wrong translation violates the right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India of making effective representation. He submitted that though in Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Grounds of detention details about injury to the complainant and his friend Ram Mhatre along with two or three other persons have been narrated, the medical certificates were neither placed before the detaining authority nor copies thereof were furnished to the detenue. Thirdly, he submitted that Sub-paragraph (v) of Paragraph 4(a) of the grounds of detention make a reference to the bail application filed by the detenue and bail granted by the Court. He submitted that a copy of the order granting bail was not placed before the detaining authority. He submitted that this vital document was not placed before the detaining authority which vitiated subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. He invited the attention of the Court to amended ground (h) in the Petition.

(2.) The learned APP opposed the Petition and supported the impugned order of detention. The learned APP submitted that a copy of the Application for bail made by the detenue was placed before the detaining authority. Her submission is that whether a bail order is a vital document or not depends on facts and circumstances of each case and in the present case, it was not a vital document.

(3.) We have carefully considered the submissions. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner tendered across the bar a compilation of documents served to the detenue along with grounds. He pointed out that on pages 126 to 132, the Application for bail made by the detenue has been annexed. However, a copy of the order granting bail passed on 7th October, 2011 was not placed before the detaining authority and in any case, a copy thereof has not been supplied to the detenue.