2012 (1) TMI 184 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the offences registered against the detenu way back in the year 1980 upto the last offence registered on August 14 2010 have been noted by the detaining authority in reaching at the satisfaction that the detenu s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and he was dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2 (b-1) of the 1981 Act? Whether the order of detention dated January 10 2011 cannot be sustained and has to be set aside?

Summary

Issues: Validity of detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981.

The judgment by the Supreme Court involved a challenge to a detention order issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The detenu's son challenged the order in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the current appeal. The detaining authority justified the detention based on the detenu's criminal activities, concluding he was a dangerous person prejudicial to public order. The detenu had been released on bail before the detention order was issued, but this information was not considered by the detaining authority. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of presenting bail orders to the detaining authority for a proper decision. The court referred to a previous case where a detention order was deemed invalid due to lack of awareness about a pending bail application. The court also highlighted the significance of proximity of criminal cases to the detention order, stating that only one offense was sufficiently close in time. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the detention order, ordering the immediate release of the detenu. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's decision was overturned.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found the detention order invalid due to the detaining authority's lack of awareness regarding the detenu's bail status and the remoteness of most criminal cases from the detention order. The court emphasized the need for proper consideration of all relevant factors before issuing a detention order under the 1981 Act, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements.