KOOTEERI SAITHALAVI /DETENU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Ahmed requested for an adjournment on the ground that in Bombay 8 weeks' time is being granted to the State Government for filing the return, whereas in the instant case rule was made returnable within four weeks. The case had come up for hearing on 2 -3 -1987 when an adjournment was asked for on behalf of the State and this Court adjourned it at the request of the Public Prosecutor for one week and it was made clear that a last chance was being given so that the authorities could be ready with the affidavit. In spite of the clear indication on 2 -3 -1987 that the case was being adjourned by way of last chance, no return is placed on behalf of the State Government. In the circumstances, we see no reason to grant further adjournment as requested.

(2.) THE present petition has to be allowed in view of the challenge raised in Ground No. '(q)' which reads thus :

(3.) THE detenu was released on bail by the Additional Presidency Magistrate vide order dated 15 -4 -1986 and the detention order was passed thereafter on 11 -7 -1986. The detenu was actually detained on 18th September 1986. This Court has consistently held in number of cases that failure on the part of the sponsoring authority to place relevant material like the bail application and the order passed thereon enlarging the detenu on bail before the detaining authority would vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The Supreme Court in the recent decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 137, (Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra curd another) has observed in para 5 as under :