Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
ANANT SAKHARAM RAUT & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1986
BENCH:
KHALID, V. (J)
BENCH:
KHALID, V. (J)
PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION:
1987 AIR 137 1987 SCR (1) 221
1986 SCC (4) 771 JT 1986 847
1986 SCALE (2)796
CITATOR INFO :
R 1987 SC1472 (16)
ACT:
National Security Act 1980, s. 3(2)--Detention
Order--Order not mentioning that detenu was an under--Trial
prisoner, arrested in three cases & released on bail--Clear
indication of non-application of mind by the detaining
authority--Detention order quashed.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner-detenue was detained pursuant to an order
of detention passed under s. 3(2) of the National Security
Act 1980. The detention was based on three incidents in
respect of which criminal Cases were already pending against
the petitioner. Before the detention order was passed, he
had moved applications for bail and was released on three
successive days in the three cases. The detention order did
not mention the fact that the detenue had made application
for bail in the three criminal cases relating to the afore-
said incidents and was enlarged on bail. The petitioner
moved the High Courts for quashing the order of detention.
The High Court dismissed the petition.
The petitioner in special leave petition against the
judgment of the High Court and his wife in a Writ Petition
under Art. 32 of the Constitution prayed for quashing the
aforesaid order of detention on the ground that there was
clear indication of non-application of mind by the detaining
authority when it passed the detention order.
Allowing the petitions,
HELD: (1) This is not a fit case to resort to preventive
detention. As there was clear non-application of mind on the
part of the detaining authority, the judgment of the High
Court under appeal is set aside and the order of detention
is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner be re-
leased forthwith. [223E-G]
(2) There is absolutely no mention in the order about
the fact that the petitioner was an under-trial prisoner,
that he was arrested in connection with the three cases,
that applications for bail were pending and that he was
released on three successive days in the three cases. This
indicates a total absence of application of mind on the part
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
of detaining
222
authority while passing the order of detention. [223C]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 575
of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.1986 of the
Bombay High Court in Crl. W.P. No. 153 of 1986.
M.S. Gupte, Rajendra Desai and V.B. Joshi for the Appel-
lant/ Petitioner.
S.V. Deshpande, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHALID, J. The same questions of law and facts are
involved in these two cases. One is a Criminal Writ Petition
under Article 32 filed by the detenue’s wife and the other a
Special Leave Petition filed by him against the Judgment of
the Bombay High Court rejecting his plea to quash the order
of detention. Special Leave granted. Both are being disposed
of by this common Judgment. We will refer to the detenue as
the petitioner in this Judgment.
The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of
detention dated 15th January, 1986, issued by the Commis-
sioner of Police, Bombay who is respondent No. 2 herein,
under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The
grounds of detention are given in Annexure-C. The detention
is based on three incidents; one on 16-9-1985, the other on
1-12-1985 and the third on 25-12-1985; the offences involved
in the three cases being 324 & 336 I.P.C., 324 & 506(ii)
I.P.C. and 452 I.P.C. respectively. There are three cases
pending in respect of these three incidents.
The order of detention discloses that the people within
the jurisdiction of Bandra Police Station in Greater Bombay
are experiencing a sense of insecurity and fear to their
lives due to the petitioner’s activities which are "prejudi-
cial to the maintenance of public order in the said locali-
ties and areas."
From the materials placed before us we find that the
first two incidents involve the same person between whom and
the petitioner there appears to be some enmity. The third
incident relates to some
223
other person. The petitioner was an under trial prisoner at
the time the detention order was made.
We do not think it necessary to go into all the grounds
urged before us by the petitioner’s counsel in support of
his prayer to quash the order of detention. The one conten-
tion strongly pressed before us by the petitioner’s counsel
is that the detaining authority was not made aware at the
time the detention order was made that the detenue had moved
applications for bail in the three pending cases and that he
was enlarged on bail on 13-1-1986, 14-1-1986 & 15-1-1986. We
have gone through the detention order carefully. There is
absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that the
petitioner was an under trial prisoner, that he was arrested
in connection with the three cases, that applications for
bail were pending and that he was released on three succes-
sive days in the three cases. This indicates a total absence
of application of mind on the part of detaining authority
while passing the order of detention.
In our view this is the short manner in which the two
cases can be disposed of. If the petitioner is found dis-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
turbing law and order or misusing the bail granted to him,
the authorities would be at liberty to move the appropriate
Court to get the bail orders cancelled. One does not know
how the detaining authority would have acted if he was made
aware of the above details.
We are not satisfied that this is a fit case to resort
to preventive detention. We refrain from referring to the
other grounds urged before us and from examining them. The
petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first ground.
We hold that there was clear non-application of mind on
the part of the detaining authority about the fact that the
petitioner was granted bail when the order of detention was
passed. In the result we set aside the Judgment of the
Bombay High Court under appeal, quash the order of detention
and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith. The
Appeal and the Writ Petition are allowed without any order
as to costs.
M.L.A. Appeal & Petition allowed.
224