Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court disposed of two criminal writ petitions challenging detention orders dated 30th June 2005 passed under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay. The petitioners, Mohd. Nabi Ahamed Nabi Kureshi and Jamil Ahmed Nabi Qureshi, were detenues who had been in judicial custody since before the detention order was issued. The court noted that both petitions involved the same C.R. and were argued together by counsel Mr. U.N. Tripathi, who restricted his submissions to a single ground, Ground No. 6(B), which contended that the petitioners were already in judicial custody on 30.6.2005. The court found that the detaining authority had not considered the possibility of the detenues being released on bail or the availability of less drastic alternatives such as cancellation of bail. Relying on established legal principles, the court held that the failure to consider these factors vitiated the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention. Consequently, the court allowed both petitions and quashed the detention orders, directing the release of the petitioners unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - MPDA Act - Judicial Custody - Less Drastic Alternative - Detention order under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) was challenged on the ground that the detenues were already in judicial custody on the date of the order. The court held that the detaining authority must consider the possibility of the detenue being released on bail and the need for detention despite being in custody. Failure to consider less drastic alternatives renders the detention order invalid. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) is valid when the detenue was already in judicial custody at the time of the order and the detaining authority failed to consider the possibility of less drastic alternatives like cancellation of bail.
Final Decision
Both criminal writ petitions are allowed. The detention orders dated 30th June 2005 are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- MPDA Act
- judicial custody
- less drastic alternative
- subjective satisfaction
- grounds of detention
