SHAHRUKH YUNUS KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / detenu - Shahrukh Yunus Khan has preferred this petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 23.12.2015 by respondent No. 2 i.e Commissioner of Police, Pune City. The said detention order has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment- 1996 and 2009) (for short, 'MPDA Act'). The said detention order is based on two C.Rs. i.e C.R. No. 325/2015 and C.R. No. 511/2015 of Wakad Police Station and two incamera statements. C.R. No. 325/2015 is under Sections 324, 323 and 504 read with 34 of IPC and C.R. No. 511/2015 is under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. The detention order was passed whilst the detenu was already lodged in jail in connection with C.R. No. 511/2015. After passing of the detention order, the said detention order along with grounds of detention was served to the detenu in jail.

(2.) Though a number of grounds have been raised in this petition whereby the detention order has been assailed, however, Mr. Kadam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed only two grounds before us. The first ground is that when the detenu was already in judicial custody, the order of detention could not have been passed on mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority that the detenu was likely to be released on bail without there being any material before the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in the near future. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Sravanan alias S.A.R. Prasana Vs. State through Secretary and Anr., 2006 2 SCC 664. He placed reliance on paragraph 14 of the said decision wherein it is observed that when there was no cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of detention and the inference by the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to be released on bail has to be drawn from the available material on record.

(3.) Mr. Kadam submitted that in the present case, there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, hence, the detention order as in the case of Sravanan would be vitiated. Mr. Kadam pointed out that C.R. No. 511/2015 is under Section 307 of IPC which is a serious offence. Charge sheet had not been filed in the said case and none of the coaccused had been granted bail in the said case, hence, only on the basis of the fact that the detenu had filed application for bail, it cannot be said that the detenu is likely to be released on bail.