1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1592 OF 2008 Smt. Karima Mujib Shah @ Shaikh ) Aged: 35 years, Occ : Housewife, ) R/o. Netaji Subhash Nagar, Behind ) Regional Transport Office, Kamraj ) Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai ) 400 077, and also at Masjid Galli, ) Kamraj Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), ) Mumbai – 400 077. ) At present detained at Yerwada ) Central Prison, Yerwada). )... .... Petitioner. VERSUS 1) Shri Hasan Gafoor, ) Commissioner of Police, ) Brihan Mumbai. ) 2) The State of Maharashtra ) 3) The Superintendent, ) Byculla Central Prison, Mumbai. ) 4) The Superintendent, ) Yerwada Mental Hospital, ) Yerwada, Pune. ) Mr. U. N. Tripathi for the Petitioner. Mrs. A. A. Pai, APP for the Respondents. 2 CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. RESERVED ON : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DELIVERED ON: 2ND MARCH, 2009. (At 4.30 P.M. in Court) JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) : This petition has been filed by the petitioner who has been detained by an order of the Detaining Authority dated 3rd May, 2008 under Section 3 (2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, (hereinafter for short “MPDA Act”). The grounds of detention were also communicated to her. Counter affidavit has been filed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have also perused the record. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority. It is also contended that even if the grounds of detentions as mentioned are taken to be true at their face value, there was nothing to show that the acts or omissions of the petitioner would disturb the maintenance of the public order. It is further contended that in the grounds of detention the Detaining Authority has stated, “I hereby communicate to you the grounds mentioned in paragraph No.4 below, on which a detention order has been made by me on this day 3 against you under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the said Act.” Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4, are the grounds on which the Detaining Authority, according to him, he relied while assuming satisfaction that the petitioner needed to be detained as her activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The contention of the petitioner is that although the Detaining Authority mentioned that grounds mentioned in paragraph 4 were the only grounds on which he arrived at a satisfaction but even then he communicated other grounds of detention. Therefore, it is a case of non-application of mind. Another ground which is agitated is that the copy of the bail order granted by the Court was not furnished to the petitioner although the Detaining Authority knew that she was bailed out and it was mentioned in the ground of detention. The translation of the bail application was not furnished. 3. In the affidavit filed in Counter by the Commissioner of Police, in reply to paragraph 6(cc) of the writ petition, it is stated, “With reference to para 6(cc) of the petition, I deny that the detenu has not been furnished with true and correct translation of bail application in LAC No. 50 of 2007. I deny that the detenu' s right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is violated”. In paragraph 6(cc) of the petition, the petitioner had claimed in addition to his grievance about the translation, “The petitioner further submits that no copy of the bail order granted by the Court is furnished to 4 the detenu.” Therefore, this allegation remained unrebutted. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Ahamedkutty v/s Union of India & Anr., reported in 1990 2 SCC. While considering such an argument, the Supreme Court held that the bail application and the bail order were vital materials and non-supply of copy thereof would be violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 27 of the said judgment reads thus: “Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired, and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to hae been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case.” 5. For the reasons aforesaid, we quash and set aside the order of detention dated 3rd May, 2008 bearing D. O. Referene No. 34/PCB/SL/Zone- VII/2008 and direct the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case. 6. Rule made absolute in terms aforesaid. Writ Petition is disposed of. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)