SEEMA VISHAL SALUNKE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority dated 9th August, 2017 under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "\the MPDA Act") is challenged by the wife of the detenue- Vishal Salunke.

(2.) Mr. Tripathi learned advocate appearing in support of this petition has pressed two grounds, incorporated and inserted in the memo of the petition by way of an amendment. The first ground incorporated by the amendment and with leave of this court dated 21st November, 2017 reads as under:-

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, leave was sought to insert additional ground and that came to be granted on 14th December, 2017. Pursuant to that liberty, ground no. 10H at page 10C was inserted on 20th December, 2017. Mr. Tripathi would submit and in relation to the ground inserted by way of amendment on 20th December, 2017 that there is a contradiction and dichotomy in the affidavits filed in reply to this petition. The first affidavit proceeds to state that the petitioner was served with order of detention while in custody, whereas, the detaining authority maintains that the petitioner was enlarged on bail and was not in custody. Mr. Tripathi would submit that the petitioner has stated that there is a single/solitary case being C. R. No. 88 of 2017 alleging offences punishable under sections 387, 427, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. That criminal case/C. R. has been referred in the grounds of detention at para 4.1. In that, the detaining authority says that the detenue was arrested on 14th March, 2017 and applied for bail on 16th March, 2017. He was enlarged on bail and released on the same day. Thus, the petitioner was no more in custody. In these circumstances, in para 8 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority proceeds to say that the petitioner was released on bail in this C.R. No. 88 of 2017. If he was a free person, not in custody and duly enlarged on bail, then, the affidavit of the authorities filed in reply to this petition, containing the above statement, would vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.