The Court held that non-placement of the entire bail order did not vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority since the reasoning in the bail order was limited to the completion of investigation and the futility of continued detention. The Court found no discussion on the merits impacting public order, thus rejecting the Petitioner’s grounds.

The Court observed that placing the complete bail order before the detaining authority is not always mandatory and depends on the case's specific facts. In this case, the reasoning part of the bail order did not affect the detaining authority’s satisfaction, and the Petitioner was not deprived of making effective representation.

The Petition was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged, upholding the validity of the detention order.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 110(e), Section 110(g)

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 397, Section 386, Section 427, Section 504, Section 506

• Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – Section 37(1), Section 135

• Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981

Subjects: Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Bail Order – Public Order – Dangerous Person – Effective Representation – In Camera Statements – Multiple Offences – Detention Order – Detenu Rights

Nature of Litigation: The Petitioner challenged the preventive detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, on 18/7/2024, under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981.

Relief Sought: The Petitioner sought the quashing of the detention order and release from Nashik Road Central Prison.

Reason for Filing the Case: The Petitioner claimed that the entire bail order was not placed before the detaining authority, which vitiated the subjective satisfaction required for issuing a detention order and deprived the Petitioner of effective representation.

Previous Decisions: The detention order was passed on 18/7/2024, and the Petitioner was detained at Nashik Road Central Prison based on his classification as a "dangerous person".

Issues:

a) Whether the non-placement of the complete bail order before the detaining authority vitiated the subjective satisfaction required for the detention order. b) Whether the detenu’s right to effective representation was violated.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Petitioner’s Counsel: Argued that only the operative part of the bail order was provided and not the complete reasoning, which constituted a vital document.

• Respondent’s Counsel: Contended that the reasoning part of the bail order did not affect the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and that the entire order was subsequently provided to the detenu.