SUHASINI KRISHNA PATIL Vs. R S SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner who is the mother of detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 25th March, 2003 whereby the detenu Sachin Krishna Patil has been detained under Section 3 (1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of the Dangerous Activities of Slumlords and Bootleggers Drug offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act.)

(2.) THE detention order dated 25th March 2003 and the grounds of detention of even date were served on the detenu along with accompanying documents on 26th March, 2003. The said detention order is issued on the basis of one case i. e. L. A. C. No. 886 of 2002 and two incamera statements. In respect of L. A. C. in the grounds of detention, it is stated that on 18th December, 2002 at about 19. 15 hours, A. P. I. Varpe of Shivaji Park Police Station, received an information on telephone that the detenu and his associate Sanjay Shridhankar who are affiliated to Amar Naik Gang, would be coming near Tandoor Hotel. Manmala tank Road, Mahim, Mumbai at about 20. 00 hours for taking ransom. On receipt of this information, under the supervision of A. P. I. Varpe, A. P. I. Awalkar and staff arranged a trap at the said spot. At about 20. 30 hours, A. P. I. Varpe spotted the detenu and his associate infront of Tandoor Hotel, Mahim Mumbai. He gave a signal to the staff to nab the detenu and his associate. However, sensing the presence of police, the detenu and his associate started running. The police staff to nab the detenu and his associate. However, sensing the presence of police, the detenu and his associate started running. The police staff chased them and apprehended both of them. Personal search of the detenu and his associate was taken in the presence of panchas and detenu was found in possession of country made firearm with two live cartridges of 0. 12 bore. The associate of the detenu was found in possession of a sickle. On the basis of said incident, L. A. C. No. 886 of 2002 under Sections 3. 4 and 25 of Arms Act and under Section 37 (1) (a) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act was registered against the detenu and his associate. Besides the above mentioned case, the statements of two witnesses A and B have been recorded incamera on 31. 1. 2003 and 6. 2. 2003 respectively. However, we do not find it necessary to refer to the details of the said statements for considering and deciding the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) THOUGH a large number of grounds have been raised in the present petition, Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only two grounds. The first ground is mentioned in ground 8 (B) of the petition. Briefly in the said ground, it is stated that the detaining authority has relied on L. A. C. Case No. 886 of 2002 for arriving at his satisfaction regarding passing the impugned order of detention. In para 4 (a) (vi) of the grounds of detention, it is stated that in the said case, the detenu had preferred an application for bail before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the said Court granted bail to the detenu in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- by imposing certain conditions. In the ground 8 (B), it is further stated that it is not understood as to on what basis, the detaining authority made such statement even though the bail application and the bail order was not placed before him. It is further stated in the ground 8 (B) that the said bail application and the order granting bail, has not been furnished to the detenu and hence, the right of detenu to make an effective representative is violated due to non-furnishing of the bail application and bail order.