Criminal Appeal No 575 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 3131986 of the Bombay High Court in Crl
WP No 153 of 1986
MS Gupte Rajendra Desai and VB Joshi for the Appel lant Petitioner
SV Deshpande AM Khanwilkar and AS Bhasme for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHALID J
The same questions of law and facts are involved in these two cases
One is a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 32 filed by the detenue s wife and the other a Special Leave Petition filed by him against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court rejecting his plea to quash the order of detention
Special Leave granted
Both are being disposed of by this common Judgment
We will refer to the detenue as the petitioner in this Judgment
The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated 15th January 1986 issued by the Commis sioner of Police Bombay who is respondent No 2 herein under Section 32 of the 
The grounds of detention are given in Annexure C
The detention is based on three incidents one on 16 9 1985 the other on 1 12 1985 and the third on 25 12 1985 the offences involved in the three cases being 324  336 IPC 324  506ii IPC and 452 IPC respectively
There are three cases pending in respect of these three incidents
The order of detention discloses that the people within the jurisdiction of Bandra Police Station in Greater Bombay are experiencing a sense of insecurity and fear to their lives due to the petitioner s activities which are prejudi cial to the maintenance of public order in the said locali ties and areas
 From the materials placed before us we find that the first two incidents involve the same person between whom and the petitioner there appears to be some enmity
The third incident relates to some 223 other person
The petitioner was an under trial prisoner at the time the detention order was made
We do not think it necessary to go into all the grounds urged before us by the petitioner s counsel in support of his prayer to quash the order of detention
The one conten tion strongly pressed before us by the petitioner s counsel is that the detaining authority was not made aware at the time the detention order was made that the detenue had moved applications for bail in the three pending cases and that he was enlarged on bail on 13 1 1986 14 1 1986  15 1 1986
We have gone through the detention order carefully
There is absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that the petitioner was an under trial prisoner that he was arrested in connection with the three cases that applications for bail were pending and that he was released on three succes sive days in the three cases
This indicates a total absence of application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the order of detention
In our view this is the short manner in which the two cases can be disposed of
If the petitioner is found dis turbing law and order or misusing the bail granted to him the authorities would be at liberty to move the appropriate Court to get the bail orders cancelled
One does not know how the detaining authority would have acted if he was made aware of the above details
We are not satisfied that this is a fit case to resort to preventive detention
We refrain from referring to the other grounds urged before us and from examining them
The petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first ground
We hold that there was clear non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority about the fact that the petitioner was granted bail when the order of detention was passed
In the result we set aside the Judgment of the Bombay High Court under appeal quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith
The Appeal and the Writ Petition are allowed without any order as to costs
MLA Appeal  Petition allowed


Summary:
The petitioner detenue was detained pursuant to an order of detention passed under section 32 of the 
The detention was based on three incidents in respect of which criminal Cases were already pending against the petitioner
Before the detention order was passed he had moved applications for bail and was released on three successive days in the three cases
The detention order did not mention the fact that the detenue had made application for bail in the three criminal cases relating to the afore said incidents and was enlarged on bail
The petitioner moved the High Courts for quashing the order of detention
The High Court dismissed the petition
The petitioner in special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court and his wife in a Writ Petition under article 32 of the Constitution prayed for quashing the aforesaid order of detention on the ground that there was clear indication of non application of mind by the detaining authority when it passed the detention order
Allowing the petitions HELD 1 This is not a fit case to resort to preventive detention
As there was clear non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority the judgment of the High Court under appeal is set aside and the order of detention is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner be re leased forthwith
223E G 2 There is absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that the petitioner was an under trial prisoner that he was arrested in connection with the three cases that applications for bail were pending and that he was released on three successive days in the three cases
This indicates a total absence of application of mind on the part of detaining 222 authority while passing the order of detention
223C