Read Time: 05 minutes

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that incidents which are old and stale and in which the detenu has been granted bail, cannot be said to have any relevance for detaining a citizen and depriving him of his liberty without a trial.

A division bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav and Justice SS Shinde thus quashed a detention order passed under section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ("MPDA Act") directing one Manoj Tangraj Devendra to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Court was informed that order of detention was passed after an abnormal delay of 4 months from the date of Devendra's arrest and almost about 3 months from the date on which he was granted bail.

It was further found that in the impugned order the authorities had relied upon 11 pending CRs against Devendra out of which 5 CRs were already considered.

"...the reliance by the detention authority is on stale and old incidents in which the Petitioner has been granted bail and they cannot be said to have any relevant for detaining the Petitioner", the bench observed.

Court further noted that the last date of incident considered by the detaining authority took place on February 25, 2021 in respect of which crime was registered on February 26, 2021.

"The Petitioner was arrested and was granted bail on 06.03.2021 in this crime. However, the detention order has been passed after an abnormal delay of more than 3 months after the Petitioner was granted bail; this delay is completely unexplained and inexcusable", said the Court in this regard.

Referring to the delay in passing the detention order, Court said that the delay was clearly writ large on the face of record in passing the detention order after the last date of the incident considered by the detaining authority.

"There is an admitted delay of more than 3 months from the date of grant of bail and delay of 4 months from the last date of incidents in the present case before the order of detention is passed. The explanation offered by the Respondent authority for such delay is not satisfactory when seen. Further, there is no plausible explanation given for the delay in recording the statements of the witnesses from the date of the incidents", observed the Court while allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned order.

Case Title: Shivkumar Madeshwaran Devendra vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors