GANESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Mr.Mir Nagman Ali, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, states that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgments reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244, Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another and 2012 ALL SCR 1373, Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite .vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, in which it is laid down that at the time of passing the order of detention it would be necessary for the Detaining Authority to consider the order/orders granting bail to the detenue in the offences that are pending against him. It is submitted that it is held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgments that non-placing and non-consideration of the bail orders would vitiate the subjective decision of the Detaining Authority.

(3.) We are inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order would be vitiated due to non- consideration of the orders granting bail to the petitioners in the offences registered against him. In none of the Judgments that are relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court were deciding the issue whether it would be necessary to place the orders granting bail to the detenue, before the Detaining Authority. It is observed by this Court in the Judgment reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2168 (supra) that the relevant and vital documents are required to be placed before the Detaining Authority, which the Detaining Authority can take into consideration. However, the question whether the orders releasing the detenue on bail are required to be considered by the Detaining Authority or not and what would be the effect of the non-consideration of the orders granting bail to the detenue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha .vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) and Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed in the Judgment in the case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite (supra) that non-placing and non-consideration of the bail orders granted to the detenue would vitiate the subjective decision of the Detaining Authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it would not attempt to assess in what manner and to what extent the consideration of the order granting bail to the detenue would have affected the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, still the non-placing and non-consideration of the orders granting bail would vitiate the subjective decision of the Detaining Authority. We would humbly follow the law laid down in the Judgment in the case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite (supra) to allow the Writ Petition by quashing and setting aside the order of the Detaining Authority.