VIJAY BABURAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides finally, by consent.

(2.) The petitioner is impugning the order dtd. 19/5/2022 passed by the respondent No.3 District Magistrate, Ahmednagar under Sec. 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates Sand Smugglers and Person Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (herein after MPDA Act), and the order dtd. 21/7/2022 passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. the Secretary of the Home Department of the State confirming the petitioner's detention.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner would advert attention to the grounds in the petition on the basis of which the order of detention is being challenged. He submits that the registration of Crime No. I-977/2021 of Pathardi Police Station for the offence Punishable Under Sec. 328, 420, 465, 468, 470, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 65 (a) to 65(f) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act which has been relied upon by the respondents to pass the impugned order. After filing of the charge sheet and its committal to the Sessions Court it is numbered as Sessions Case No.79/2022. But the respondents failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was granted bail by the Sessions Court on 10/3/2022. He would refer to the decision in the matter of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2012 Cri.L.J. 1334 and Vishal Waman Mhatre Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Ors.; 2013 All MR (Cri) 42. He would submit that in both these matters, failure to take into consideration order of bail was held to vitiate the order of detention.