MEENA DEEPAK SONDE Vs. B S MOHITE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who has described herself as wife of the detenu Deepak Virappa Sonde has impugned the detention order dated 17-10-1998 passed by the First Respondent Mr. B. S. Mohite, Commissioner of Police, Thane, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No. LV of 1981 ). The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 17-10-1998 was served on the detenu on 17-10-1998 itself. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and C respectively to this writ petition. The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the impugned detention order are contained in the grounds of detention but, since in our view, a reference to them is not necessary for deciding this petition, we are not adverting to them.

(2.) ALTHOUGH in this writ petition a large number of grounds have been pleaded, but since in our judgment, this writ petition deserves to be allowed on Ground 6 (xxiii) which has been pleaded by way of an amendment, we are not adverting to the other grounds. The said ground in short is that para 5 (a) of the grounds of detention shows that the Detaining Authority has relied upon an offence registered at Hill Line Police Station vide C. R. No. I-34/98 under section 307/34 and sections 25 (1) (a) (c) of the Arms Act r/w sections 37 (1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act in passing the impugned detention order and although the detenu had been granted bail in the said C. R. vide a reasoned order dated 24-4-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan but, the full text of the bail order was not forwarded by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority and instead the operative part of the said bail order was placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority. The contention of Mr. Gupte learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member (Vishnu Sahai, J. ,) in the case of (Sameer Suleman Shama v. State of Maharashtra and others), reported in : 1997 All. M. R. (Cri) 347 : 1997 (1) Mah. L. J. 427 : 1997 (1) L. J. 186 has held that if the detenu is on bail at the time of the passing of the detention order and if the bail order is a reasoned order, the full text of the bail order and not the operative part alone should be placed before the Detaining Authority. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Gupte invited our attention to para 14 (iii) of the said decision which reads thus :---

(3.) WE have examined the affidavit 66 the Detaining Authority dated 22-7-99 and we find that the correctness of the said ground has not been rebuted in it.