M CHITARAIKANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the brother-in-law (wife's brother) of the detenu. THE order of preventive detention is under Act 14 of 1982 on the ground that the detenu is a bootlegger.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of preventive detention has been passed without proper application of mind regarding the compelling necessity to pass an order of preventive detention in respect of a person already in custody. LEARNED counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of ABDUL SATHAR ibrahim MANIK vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 1 SCC page 1. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is as follows: "having regard to the various above-cited decisions on the points often raised we find it appropriate to set down our conclusions as under: (1) A detention order can validly be passed even in the case of a person who is already in custody. In such a case, it must appear from the grounds that the authority was aware that the detenu was already in custody. (2) when such awareness is there then it should further appear from the grounds that there was enough material necessitating the detention of the person in custody. This aspect depends upon various considerations and facts and circumstances of each case. If there is a possibility of his being released and on being so released he is likely to indulge in prejudicial activity then that would be one such compelling necessity to pass the detention order. The order cannot be quashed on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and that if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition the same can be questioned before a higher court. "