Holding

The detention order is quashed because the detaining authority did not apply its mind to the material fact that the petitioner had been released on bail, making the preventive detention inappropriate.

Summary

Anant Sakharm Raut was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 based on three criminal incidents for which cases were pending. At the time the detention order was issued, Raut had applied for bail in all three cases and had been released on bail on successive days, but the order made no mention of his under‑trial status or bail. The High Court dismissed his petition to quash the detention, but the Supreme Court held that the detaining authority had shown a clear non‑application of mind by ignoring material facts. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment, quashed the detention order, and ordered Raut’s immediate release. The Court emphasized that preventive detention was not appropriate where the authority fails to consider relevant circumstances such as bail.

Issues considered

Whether a detention order under the National Security Act is valid when the detaining authority fails to consider that the detainee is an under‑trial prisoner who has been granted bail.
Whether the omission of material facts amounts to non‑application of mind, rendering the preventive detention order invalid.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 324, s. 336, s. 452, s. 506(ii)
National Security Act, 1980s. 3(2)

Subjects

preventive detentionNational Security Actnon‑application of mindbailunder‑trial prisonerquashing detention orderArticle 32constitutional law

Judgment

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

NOVEMBER l4. l986

[R.S. PATHAK AND V. KHALID, JJ.] B

~
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.

-r The petitioner-detenue was detained pursuant to an order of de-
tention passed under s. 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980. The
c

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 D
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 E

·---r High Court and his wife in a Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Con-
stitution 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, F
........ •
' 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
..J _ 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] 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 H

22 l
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 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 16-9-
1985, the othfr on l-12-1985 and the third on 25-12-1985; the offences
F 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 juris-
diction of Bandra Police Station in Greater Bombay are exjieriencing a
c 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
H 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 A
detention order was made. •

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 B
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 pris-
oner, that he was arrested in connection with the three cases, that c
applications for bail were pending and that he was released on three
-f 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.
D
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 be-
fore us and from examining them. The petitioner is entitled to succeed
on the first ground.
F
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
the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released forth-
with.· The Appeal and the Writ Petition are allowed without any order . G
as ·to costs. ·

M.L.A.
)-.
Appeal & Petition allowed.
'
H