Allowed

Vinod @ Papa Rajan Nair v. D.N. Jadhav and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2009WP/1286/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Mumbai High Court judge allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner-detenu challenging the constitutionality of his detention order. The court held the order unsustainable as the petitioner was already in custody with a rejected bail application, and there was no cogent material to presume imminent danger.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 29.02.2008 is quashed and set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Vinod @ Papa Rajan Nair Vs D.N. Jadhav… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

d gm

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1286 OF 2008

¶5

Shri Vinod @ Papa Rajan Nair Age 24 years, residing at Hut No.B-1/147, J.K.Bhasin Marg, Sion-Koliwada, Mumbai-400037 (At present detained at Central Prison at Thane.) Petitioner (Detenu) vs.

¶6

Shri D.N.Jadhav, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, (Through the Secretary Home Department(Spl.), Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

The Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison Nashik. Respondents

¶9

Mr.U.N.Tripathi for the petitioner.

¶10

Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM : BILAL NAZKI &

¶12

ANOOP V.MOHTA,JJ.

¶13

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 23rd January, 2009.

¶14

DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 2nd February, 2009.

¶15

JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta,J.)

¶16

	The		petitio	ner-detenu	has chal	lenged	an order
of	detention		dated	29.02.2008	passed	by	Respondent
no.1-Comm	issioner	of		Police,	Brihanm	umbai,	under
Section	3	(1)	of	Maharashtra	Prevention	of	Dangerous
Activities	of		Sl	umlords Bo	otleggers,	Drug	Offenders

¶17

and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the Act").

¶18

( 2 )

¶19

2.	On	the c	omplaint	of	Smt.Vim	al J.	P.Gupta	dated
21.01.2008	an	offence	v	ide	C.R.	No.0	0/2008	under
Sections	342,	364,	384,	506(	2) of	Indian	Penal	Code
(IPC)	was	registered	at	U	lhasnagar	Police	Station	and

¶20

subsequently transferred to Antop Hill Police Station

¶21

which is registered vide C.R.No.26/2008.

¶22

3.	The	petiti	oner-detenu was	on re	mand	till
13.02.2008	b	y	the learned	Metropolitan		Magistrate,
51st	Court,	Kurl	a, Mumbai.	The Authorities		recorded
incamera	state	ments	of witnesses	of "A", "B"	and	"C"

¶23

from 24.01.2008 to 25.01.2008 which are also a part of

¶24

alleged grounds of detention.

¶25

3(1) of the said Act was passed by the Commissioner of

¶26

Police, Brihanmumbai.

¶27

5.	The	Gov	ernment	has		grant	ed	approv	al on 0	4.03.2008
which	is	actuall	y the	date		of	the	detent	ion of	the
petitioner.		On	24.0	3.2008		a	refer	ence	under	Section
10 of	the	Act	was	made	to	the	Ad	visory	Board.	The
report	of	the	Advi	sory		Boar	d	was	received	on

¶28

19.04.2008 and by order dated 22.04.2008 the order of

¶29

detention was confirmed by the Government.

¶30

( 3 )

¶31

present writ petition on 19.06.2008.

¶32

The basic contention of the petitioner-detenu is that his Bail Application in C.R.No.26/2008 was

¶33

rejected and he is in custody. The order of detention

¶34

inspite of this fact, therefore, is unsustainable.

¶35

8. The Apex	Cou	rt in T.	V.Sravanan alias	S.A.R	.Prasana
Venkatachaariar Chat	urvedi	v. S	tate, (2006)	2	SCC
664, has con	sidered	the question	i.e. "	Whether	an
order of detention	is	justified	even though	the	detenu
was in Jail	on	the date of	issuance of	order	of
detention?". In	the	present	case, on the	date	of
impugned order	of	detention	the bail appl	ication	of
the petitioner was	alre	ady rejected.	There	is	nothing
on record to	show	that the	petitioner had	moved	any
application for	filing	bail a	pplication again		and/or
any bail application	filed	by him,	wherein he	might	be
granted bail.	There	is	no proper	sat	isfaction
recorded that	there	was imm	inent possibility	that	the
petitioner would	be	released as	on the	date	of
impugned order,	on	presumption	and assu	mption	and
basically for	want	of cogent	material	before	the

¶36

( 4 )

¶37

Detaining Authority. We are of the view that the present order of detention is unsustainable on this ground itself. 9. There is no other offence registered against the Petitioner. Therefore, in the present case, it is difficult to accept that he is dangerous person or acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order mainly on the basis of three statements recorded. 10. Insofar as the conclusion that the petitioner would indulge in similar activities if set at liberty is concerned, is also unsustainable. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention being D.O. No.16/PCB/DP/Zone-IV/2008 dated 29.02.2008 issued under Section 3(1) of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 (Amend 1996) by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai against the petitioner/detenu-Shri Vinod @ Papa Rajan Nair is quashed and set aside. The detenu-Shri Vinod @ Papa Rajan Nair be released forthwith, if not required in

¶38

any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶39

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶40

(BILAL NAZKI, J.)

Vinod @ Papa Rajan Nair v. D.N. Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod @ Papa Rajan Nair v. D.N. Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila Sharad Bhoite Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Barkat Bibi Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shibu Mukul Das Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ismail @ Salim Yusuf Shaikh @ Javed and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwanath Dattoba Hargude Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bajirao Nivruti Awari Vs the State of Maharashtra