IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPELLAT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2012
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 6118 OF 2011]
RUSHIKESH TANAJI BHOITE Appellant
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondents
J U D G E M E N T
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel for the State of
4. The legality of the detention order dated
5. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the appellant urged diverse grounds in challenging the order of the High Court. We do not want to deal with all the grounds urged by Dr. A.M. Singhvi as in our view, appeal deserves to be allowed on the short ground that we indicate hereinafter.
6. In pursuance of Section 8 of 1981 Act, the detenu was supplied with the grounds for detention setting out therein particulars of offences and the action taken against him. 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. The last criminal case referred to in the grounds is against the detenu for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504, 506, 353, 427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act read with Section 37 (1)(3) for breach of Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, registered at Dharangaon Police Station on August 14, 2010.
7. The admitted position is that detenu was arrested in connection with the above crime on
8. It would be, thus, seen that the order releasing the detenu on bail in the crime registered on
9. In a case where detenu is released on bail and is enjoying his freedom under the order of the court at the time of passing the order of detention, then such order of bail, in our opinion, must be placed before the detaining authority to enable him to reach at the proper satisfaction.
10. In the present case, since the order of bail dated
11. A three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu Through Secretary to Governmen t and Another, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244, decided recently held as under:
“In this connection,it may be noted that there is nothing on the record to indicate whether the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the bail application of the accused was pending on the date when the detention order was passed on 08.04.2010. On the other hand, in para 4 of the grounds of detention it is mentioned that “Thiru. Ramakrishnan is in remand in crime No. 132/2010 and he has not moved any bail application so far”. Thus, the detaining authority was not even aware whether a bail application of the accused was pending when he passed the detention order, rather the detaining authority passed the detention order under the impression that no bail application of the accused was pending but in similar cases bail had been granted by
the courts. We have already stated above that no details of the alleged similar cases has been given. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained.”
12. In the case of Rekha (supra), the detention order was held to be bad as the detaining authority was not aware of the fact that the bail application of the detenu was pending on the date when the detention order was passed. In the present case, the detenu was already released on bail but the detaining authority was not aware of the fact of grant of bail to the detenu.
13. A reference to the decision of the majority view in the case of Vijay Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (1984) 3 SCC 14, may not be out of the context. In paragraph 32 of the Judgment, Venkataramiah, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the majority observed as follows:
“When a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinising the validity of an order of preventive detention which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal court.“
14. The other offences referred to in the order of detention suffer from remoteness and want of proximity to the order of detention. None of the criminal cases, except the offence registered on
15. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the order of detention dated
16. Appeal is allowed and the order dated
17. In light of the above order, no order is required to be passed on the Application for Impleadment and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).6118/2011 (From the judgement and order dated 13/05/2011 in CRLWP No.123/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD)
RUSHIKESH TANAJI BHOITE Petitioner(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and impleadment and permission to file rejoinder affidavit and office report)
(FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE
For Petitioner(s) Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Jayant Bhushan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav,Adv.
Mr. Anish R. Shah,Adv.
Mr. Jayant Bhatt,Adv
Mr. Nishant R Katneshwarkar,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shankar Chillarge,Adv.
Mr. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.
Mr. Debasis Misra ,Adv
for Res. No. 4 Mr. Suhas Kadam,Adv.
Mr. Debasis Misra,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Judgment has been dictated. Release of full Judgment may take time. It is, therefore, directed that following operative Order may be issued:
“The appeal is allowed and the Order dated
(N.K. Goel) (Renu Diwan)