2012 (1) TMI 199 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in passing the detention order.
2. Misleading appraisal regarding legal representation before the Advisory Board.
3. Alleged difference in grounds of detention.
4. Non-supply of the proposal submitted by the Sponsoring Authority.
5. Reliance on in-camera statements recorded after release on bail.
6. Non-consideration of the complainant's affidavit.
7. Non-application of mind regarding the complaint registered against unknown persons.
8. Non-consideration of the anticipatory bail order of the co-accused.

Summary:

1. Delay in Passing the Detention Order:
The petitioner challenged the detention order u/s 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, citing delays between 2nd September 2011 to 27th September 2011 and 27th September 2011 to 7th October 2011. The Detaining Authority explained the delays were due to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) being busy with the Ganpati Festival Bandobast and investigations related to the 13th July 2011 serial bomb blasts, and the Detaining Authority's foreign visit. The court found these explanations sufficient and held that mere delay does not vitiate the detention order unless it snaps the live-link with the prejudicial activities.

2. Misleading Appraisal Regarding Legal Representation Before the Advisory Board:
The petitioner argued that being informed he could not be represented by a legal practitioner before the Advisory Board was misleading, citing State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Zubair Haji Qasim. The court noted that the grounds of detention merely restated the position u/s 11(5) of the Act and did not mislead the petitioner. The petitioner did not request legal representation before the Advisory Board, and thus, this ground was rejected.

3. Alleged Difference in Grounds of Detention:
The petitioner claimed that the grounds of detention translated on 12th October 2011 differed from those formulated after 13th October 2011. The Detaining Authority clarified that the grounds were the same and were duly considered before issuing the detention order on 14th October 2011. The court found this grievance to be based on assumptions and devoid of merit.

4. Non-Supply of the Proposal Submitted by the Sponsoring Authority:
The petitioner contended that the proposal by the Senior Inspector of Police, Borivali Police Station, was a vital document that should have been furnished. The Detaining Authority countered that the proposal was only referred to and not relied upon. The court, referencing previous judgments, held that non-supply of the proposal did not vitiate the detention order as it was not a relied-upon document.

5. Reliance on In-Camera Statements Recorded After Release on Bail:
The petitioner argued that in-camera statements recorded on 5th and 8th August 2011, after his release on bail, should not be relied upon, citing Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar. The court noted that the statement on 5th August 2011 was contemporaneous with the release on bail and did not find the reliance on these statements to render the detention illegal.

6. Non-Consideration of the Complainant's Affidavit:
The petitioner claimed that the Detaining Authority did not consider an affidavit absolving him of charges. The Detaining Authority stated that the affidavit was considered along with a subsequent statement indicating it was made under duress. The court found no merit in this challenge as the affidavit was duly considered.

7. Non-Application of Mind Regarding the Complaint Registered Against Unknown Persons:
The petitioner argued that a complaint registered against unknown persons could not be the basis for his detention. The court noted that the Detaining Authority relied on a subsequent statement identifying the petitioner and found no merit in this ground.

8. Non-Consideration of the Anticipatory Bail Order of the Co-Accused:
The petitioner contended that the Detaining Authority did not consider the anticipatory bail order of the co-accused. The Detaining Authority confirmed awareness of the co-accused's bail and had considered it. The court found this ground to be without merit.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed as all grounds of challenge were found to be devoid of merit.