Preventive detention quashed after authorities failed to supply vital witness statements and injury records needed for an effective representation

The Commissioner of Police passed an order under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, directing the petitioner’s detention.

The order relied on two registered offences and two in-camera witness statements; the petitioner’s challenge focused on CR No. 170 of 2025.

The documents supplied for that offence included the FIR and materials relating to remand and bail, but not eyewitness statements or injury certificates.

The petitioner argued that these were vital documents and that their non-supply impaired his ability to make an effective representation.

The detaining authority asserted that the documents were corroborative and offered to supply them if requested.

1. Whether non-supply of vital documents relating to CR No. 170 of 2025 violated the petitioner’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

2. Whether the offer to provide those documents later, upon request, cured the non-supply at the time of service of the detention order.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires that a detenu be communicated the grounds of detention and afforded a real opportunity to make an effective representation.

Where material documents considered by the detaining authority are vital to the grounds of detention, they must be supplied to the detenu; a later offer to provide them does not cure the impairment of the right to make an effective representation at the earliest opportunity.

The detention order was made under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981.

The Court found that the supplied papers for CR No. 170 of 2025 omitted eyewitness statements and injury certificates, which it regarded as vital documents.

The detaining authority’s affidavit did not clarify whether those materials had been considered; its description of them as merely corroborative nevertheless indicated awareness of them.

If considered, they should have been supplied so the petitioner could make an effective representation.

The authority’s willingness to supply them later, or the petitioner’s failure to request them, did not excuse the initial non-supply.

It made the Rule absolute, quashed the detention order dated 22 November 2025, and directed the petitioner’s release forthwith unless required in another case; the petition was disposed of.