1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 970 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 970 OF 2008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 970 OF 2008 Shri Sanjay Kalpanath Pandye ) Age 34 years, Occupation - ) residing at Room No.5, Pathak Kutir ) Chawl, Tajanji Nagar, Dhobi Ghat ) Kurar Village, Malad (E), Mumbai- ) 400 097 )..Petitioner Versus 1. Shri D.N.Jadhav ) Commissioner of Police Mumbai. ) 2. The State of Maharashtra ) (Through the Secretary ) Home Department (Spl.) ) Mantralaya, Mumbai. ) 3. The Superintendent ) Nashik Road Central Prison ) Nashik. )..Respondents Mr. U.N.Tripathi, for the petitioner. 2 Mrs. A.S.Pai, APP, for the State. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & A.A.SAYED,JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & A.A.SAYED,JJ. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATED DATED DATED: 7th October, 2008. 7th October, 2008. 7th October, 2008. JUDGMENT : (PER S.B.MHASE,J.) JUDGMENT : (PER S.B.MHASE,J.) JUDGMENT : (PER S.B.MHASE,J.) 1. This is a Petition challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, on 22nd February, 2008 under Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short "MPDA Act") read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No.DDS-1208/CR-57/SPL-3(B) dated 12th February,2008, whereby the petitioner has been detained with effect from 22nd February, 2008 for a period of one year. Though there are many grounds stated in the Petition, the petitioner has pressed only one ground (ground g). 2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was in jail on 22nd February, 2008 as he was arrested in C.R.No.230 of 2007 registered with the Kurar Police Station, Mumbai for an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. He submitted that since the detenu was in jail 3 from 22nd February, 2008, it was not necessary for the Detaining Authority to pass and serve the order of detention on 27th February, 2008 and detain the petitioner and therefore, according to him, the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind. 3. In reply to Ground g of the Petition, the Detaining Authority has replied in para 14 to the following effect :- "14. With reference to paragraph 5(g) of the petition, it is denied that since the detenu was in judicial custody in CR No.230 of 2007 on the date of which I issued the Detention Order and therefore, he was already prevented from indulging in prejudicial activities and there was also no cogent material before me so as to come to the conclusion that the detenu would get bail." Apart from this, the Detaining Authority has considered the points of arrest of the petitioner in the grounds of detention in para 7 which reads thus :- "7. I have carefully gone through the material placed before me and I am subjectively satisfied 4 that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenmance of public order. I am aware that you have not been granted bail in connection with Kurar Police Station C.R.No.230/07 so far. As the investigation in this case has been completed and charge sheet against you and your associates has been submitted before the Ld. Court and the offence is not compulsorily punishable with death or life imprisonment and your associate Shailesh Anant Mane had already granted bail in this case, so you are likely to be granted bail in the said case under the normal law of the land. In view of your tendencies and inclinations reflected in the offences committed by you as stated above, I am further satisfied that after released on bail you will become a free person and in the event of your being at large, being a criminal, you are likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and that with a view to prevent you from acting in such a prejudicial manner in future, it is necessary to detain you under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act." 5 4. Thus, after going through this, what we find is that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that the detenu-petitioner was in jail in connection with C.R.No.230 of 2007. The Detaining Authority was also aware of the fact that the co-accused - Shailesh Anant Mane had been granted bail and that the petitioner had also filed an application for bail and the Detaining Authority found that under the normal law of the land, the petitioner was likely to get bail and, therefore, in order to prevent the petitioner from indulging into the prejudicial activities to the maintenance of public order in future, it was necessary to detain him by an order of detention under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act and therefore it is not a case of non-application of mind. On the contrary, the order itself mentions under what circumstances the order was being passed. The same has been explained in para 14 of the affidavit which is reproduced above. Except this ground, no other ground has been argued before this Court. This ground, as we have stated earlier, does not impress us. The Petition is without merit. The order of detention is hereby confirmed. 5. The Writ Petition is rejected. Rule discharged. 6 (A.A.SAYED,J.) (S.B.MHASE,J.) (A.A.SAYED,J.) (S.B.MHASE,J.) (A.A.SAYED,J.) (S.B.MHASE,J.)