Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sagar Sunil Gaikwad, challenged an order of detention dated 27 September 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, under Section 3 of the 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 (MPDA Act). The petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with C.R. No.244 of 2017 and C.R. No.316 of 2017 and had not applied for bail in either case. The detaining authority recorded a satisfaction that there was an imminent possibility of the petitioner being released on bail if he applied, and that such release would lead to him continuing his dangerous activities. The petitioner argued that this satisfaction was based on no cogent material, as he had never applied for bail. The court, per S.C. Dharmadhikari and Prakash D. Naik, JJ., held that the detaining authority's apprehension of imminent release was not supported by any material on record. The court noted that the detenu had not applied for bail, and there was no indication that bail would be granted. Relying on settled law, the court found that the subjective satisfaction was vitiated and the detention order could not be sustained. The petition was allowed, and the detention order was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Subjective Satisfaction - Imminent Possibility of Bail - 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, Section 3 - Detenu in judicial custody without bail application - Detaining authority's satisfaction that detenu may be released on bail if applied, held to be based on no material and thus invalid - Detention order quashed (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order under Section 3 of the MPDA Act is valid when the detenu was already in judicial custody and had not applied for bail, and the detaining authority's satisfaction that there was an imminent possibility of bail was based on no cogent material.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 27 September 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- subjective satisfaction
- imminent possibility of bail
- judicial custody
- MPDA Act
- Article 226
