ANANT SAKHARAM RAUT & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ETC.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R.S. Pathak
V. Khalid
Judgment Date: 1986-11-14
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal and Petition allowed; the detention order is quashed and the petitioner is to be released forthwith.
Final Disposition: Appeal and Petition allowed; detention order quashed; release ordered for the detenue; grounds of non-application of mind noted by the Court.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anant Sakharam Raut and others

Respondents

State of Maharashtra
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.S. Gupte
• Rajendra Desai
• V.B. Joshi

Counsels for Respondents

• S.V. Deshpande
• A.M. Khanwilkar
• A.S. Bhasme

Case Synopsis & Summary

This case concerns detention under the National Security Act, 1980 against the petitioner-detenue on three incidents that formed the basis of a detention order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bombay. The detention was premised on pending criminal cases and the applicant's alleged conduct in public spaces, with the grounds of detention stating the acts were prejudicial to public order. The petitioner had moved for bail in the three criminal cases and was released on bail on three successive days; however, the detention order did not disclose these facts. The petitioner challenged the order as lacking application of mind by the detaining authority, arguing that the absence of any mention of the detenue’s under-trial status, pending bail applications, and bail releases undermined the validity of the detention. The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition. In a common judgment on two related matters, the Supreme Court allowed the petitions, holding that there was clear non-application of mind in passing the detention order. The Court quashed the detention order and directed the petitioner’s release forthwith, emphasizing that non-application of mind by the detaining authority invalidates preventive detention. The decision signifies that detention orders must reflect awareness of relevant circumstances (e.g., under-trial status and bail) to withstand scrutiny under NSA.”

Provisions of Law Cited

National Security Act, 1980, s. 3(2)Indian Penal Code, sections 32, 336, 324, 506(ii), 452

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Non-application of mind by the detaining authority (grounds for quashing detention)
Detention under preventive detention must be based on informed, reasoned grounds; failure to reveal relevant information vitiates detention

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The detenue argues that the detention order suffers from total non-application of mind since it fails to mention crucial circumstances—namely that he was an under-trial prisoner, that bail applications were pending in three cases, and that he was released on bail on three consecutive days. This lack of disclosure invalidates the order and warrants quashing, as continued detention without consideration of these facts cannot be upheld under NSA 1980.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the detention order was grounded in circumstances affecting public order and security, and that the detaining authority should be measured by the order's admissible grounds. They submit that the absence of explicit mention of bail would not automatically negate the order where other grounds exist and that the authority acted within its powers under NSA 1980. (Notes: The bench indicates it need not address all grounds raised by the petitioner's counsel.)

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_'..If_ ~ # - [r ] #### _--!._ ##### ·---r ## ........ ' ###### ..J _ ANANT SAKHARAM RAUT & ORS. _v._ STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ETC. NOVEMBER l4. l986 [R.S. PATHAK AND V. KHALID, JJ.] _National Security Act 1980,_ _s._ _3(2)-Detention Order-Order not_ _mentioning_ _that. detenu_ _was_ _an_ _under-Trial prisoner,_ _arrested_ _in_ _three_ _cases_ _&_ _released on_ bai!~Clear _indication_ _of non-application_ _of mind_ _by the detaining authority-Detention order quashed._ The petitioner-detenue was detained pursuant to an order of detention passed under s. 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980. The detention was based on three incidents in respect of which criminal Cases were already pending against the petitioner. Before the detention order was passed, he had moved applications for bail and was released on three successive days in the three cases. The detention order did not mention th~ fact that the detenue had made application for hail in the three criminal cases relating to the aforesaid incidents and was enlarged on bail. The petitioner moved the High Courts for quashing the order of detention. The High Court dismissed the petition. The petitioner in special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court and his wife in a Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution prayed for quashing the aforesaid order of detention on the ground that there was clear indication of non-application of mind by the detaining authority when it passed the detention order. #### Allowing the petitions, • HELD: (!) This is not a fit case to resort to preventive detention. As there was clear non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, the judgment of the High Court underappeal is set aside and the order of deten~ion is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner be released forthwith. [223E-G] (2) There is absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that **·the petitioner was an under;.trial prisoner, that he was arrested'in con·** nection with the three cases, that applications for bail were pending and **that he was released** on~ **three successive days in the three cases. This** indicates a total absence of application of "!ind on the part of detaining _22_ l A B c D E F ' G H _222_ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R. A **authority while** passing **the order of detention.** [223C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3. 1986 of the Bombay B High Court in Cr!. W.P. No. 153 of 1986. M.S. Gupte, Rajendra Desai and V.B. Joshi for the Appellant/ Petitioner. #### S.V. Deshpande, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S-. Bhasme for the 4 ###### c Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **KHALID, J.** The same questions of law and facts are involved in these two cases. One is a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 32 filed D by the detenue's wife and the other a Special Leave Petition filed by him against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court rejecting his plea to quash the order of detention. Special Leave granted. Both are being disposed of by this common Judgment. We will refer to the detenue as the petitioner in this Judgment. E F c **H** The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated 15th January, 1986, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bombay who is respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The grounds o.f detention are given in Annexure-C. The detention is based on three incidents; one on 16-91985, the othfr on l-12-1985 and the third on 25-12-1985; the offences involved in the three cases being 32~ & 336 I. P. C., 324 & 506(ii) I.P .C. and 452 I. P. C. respectively. There are three cases pending in respect of these three incidents. The order of detention discloses that the people within the jurisdiction of Bandra Police Station in Greater Bombay are exjieriencing a sense of insecurity and fear to their lives due to the petitioner's activities which are "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the said localities and areas.·· From the materials placed before us we find that the first two incidents involve the same person between whom and the petitioner there appears to be some enmity. The third incident relates to some A.S. RAUT _v._ STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [KHALID, J.] 223 other person. The petitioner was an under trial prisoner at the time the detention order was made. A B ###### c D We do not think it necessary to go into all the grounds urged before us by the petitioner's counsel in support of his prayer to quash the order of detention. The one contention strongly pressed before us by the petitioner's counsel is that the detaining authority was not made aware at the time the detention order was made that the detenue had moved applications for bail in the three pending cases and that he was enlarged on bail on 13-1-1986, 14-1-1986 & 15-1-1986. We have gone ~~through the detention order carefully. There is absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that the petitioner was an under trial prisoner, that he was arrested in connection with the three cases, that applications for bail were pending and that he was released on three successive days in the three cases. This indicates a total absence of application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the order of detention. _-f_ In our view this is the short manner in which the two cases can be disposed of. If the petitioner is found disturbing law and order or misusing the bail granted to him, the authorities would be at liberty to move the appropriate Court to get the bail orders cancelled. One does not know how the detaining authority would have acted if he was made aware of the above details. E We are not satisfied that this is a fit case to resort to preventive detention. We refrain from referring to the other grounds urged before us and from examining them. The petitioner is entitled to succeed on the first ground. We hold that there was clear non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority about the fact that the petitioner was granted bail when the order of detention was passed. In the result we set aside the Judgment of the Bombay High Court under appeal, quash F the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith.· The Appeal and the Writ Petition are allowed without any order . G as ·to costs. M.L.A. )-. Appeal & Petition allowed. ' H