KASHINATH TUKARAM LAD Vs. D S SOMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the detenu has challenged the order of detention issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay dated 9th April 1986 under the National Security Act. In pursuance of this order the detenu was actually came to be detained on 29th May 1986.

(2.) We had an occasion to consider the case of a co-detenu Pradip in Criminal Writ Petition No. 611 of 1986 and the said writ petition came to be allowed by an order dated 6th December 1986. The allegations made in the grounds of detention are somewhat similar. It appears from the grounds of detention that there was enmity between two groups. However, for the reasons best known to the detaining authority in the affidavit a statement is made that there was no enmity between the complainant on the one hand and the detenu and his associate on the other. It is also stated in the affidavit that the detenu had applied for grant of bail from time to time and it was very the likely that the Court may grant bail to the detenu and he might continue his prejudicial activities in future. Now it transpires during the course of hearing that the detenu was released on bail on 16th April 1986 for an amount of Rs. 7500/-. The order of detention came to be passed on 9th April 1986 and it was served on the detenu on 29th of May 1986. There is nothing on record to show that the detenu remained absconding. As a matter of fact the detenu came to be detained on 29th May 1986 when his case came to be committed to the Sessions Court. The averments made in the affidavit clearly demonstrate total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the relevant facts. It is not known as to whether the bail application filed by the detenu was opposed. As observed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 1986 (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2049 of 1986)-Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and another1, if the petitioner was found disturbing the law and order or misusing the bail granted to him, the authorities would be at liberty to move the appropriate court and get the bail orders cancelled. One does not know how the detaining authority would have acted, if it was made aware of the relevant details. In this view of the matter we have no other alternative but to hold that the order of detention is vitiated because of total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the relevant material.

(3.) Hence Rule is made absolute and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Rule made absolute.