Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Prakash Balkrishna Pujari, challenged his preventive detention order passed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The detention order was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, while the petitioner was already in judicial custody since April 2005 in connection with two criminal cases (C.R. Nos. 45/2005 and 113/2005) under sections 399, 402 IPC read with sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, relating to bank robbery and dacoity. The grounds of detention referred to these two incidents. In paragraph 7 of the detention order, the Commissioner acknowledged that the petitioner had not been granted bail in those cases but observed that he 'may be granted bail in the said cases in due course under normal law of the land'. This observation formed the basis of the petitioner's challenge. The main contention was that the detention order was based on a misapprehension that the petitioner might be released on bail, without any material to support such a conclusion. The court examined the law regarding preventive detention of persons already in custody. It held that for a valid detention order, the detaining authority must be satisfied on cogent material that there is a real and imminent possibility of the person being released on bail and that after release he would engage in activities prejudicial to public order. The mere statement that he 'may be granted bail' is speculative and insufficient. The court noted that the petitioner had not applied for bail and there was no material indicating that he was likely to be released. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not based on any cogent material, rendering the detention order invalid. The court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, directing the petitioner's release unless required in other cases.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - MPDA Act - Detention of Person in Custody - Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) - The detaining authority passed a detention order against the petitioner who was already in judicial custody for offences under IPC and Arms Act, observing that he 'may be granted bail in due course'. The court held that such a detention order is invalid as the subjective satisfaction must be based on a real and imminent possibility of release, not a mere speculative possibility. The detaining authority failed to consider that the petitioner had not applied for bail and there was no material indicating likely release. (Paras 1-7) B) Preventive Detention - Subjective Satisfaction - Requirement of Cogent Material - Section 3 of MPDA Act - The court reiterated that for a valid detention order against a person in custody, the detaining authority must be satisfied on cogent material that there is a real possibility of the person being released on bail and that after release he would engage in prejudicial activities. Mere statement that he 'may be granted bail' without any basis renders the order invalid. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a preventive detention order under the MPDA Act can be validly passed against a person who is already in custody, based solely on the apprehension that he may be granted bail in the future.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order. Directed the petitioner to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention order cannot be based on mere possibility of bail
- Detention of a person already in custody requires imminent possibility of release
- Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority must be based on cogent material
