Bhikan Buddhu Naurangabadi vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15779 Bom

wp476.21.                                                                                                      1/2


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                           Criminal Writ Petition No.476/2021
              (Bhikan Buddhu Naurangabadi V State of Maharashtra and another)
*******************************************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                        Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*******************************************************************************************************************
                 Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for petitioner.
                 Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for State.


                            CORAM : M.S. SONAK & PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATE : 15-11-2021.

Heard Mr. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Mirza learned APP for the State.

2. The Rule was issued in this petition on 09-07-2020 and

with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is

taken up for final disposal.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned

detention order dated 26-04-2021 made under the provisions of

the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,

Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates,

Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of

Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short, 'said Act').

4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find

that there is no serious dispute that the issue raised in this petition

is covered by our judgment and order dated 27-10-2021 in

Criminal Writ Petition No.477/2021. Even in the present case, the

wp476.21. 2/2

the detaining authority has neither taken into consideration the

bail applications nor the orders made thereon in respect of the

instances taken into consideration by the detaining authority. After

reference to several precedents, we have taken the view that such

material, was relevant and vital and since the detaining authority

had failed to take the same into consideration, the impugned

detention order was vitiated. Applying the same reasoning to the

facts of the present case, the impugned detention order in the

present case as well will have to be set aside.

5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned detention

order dated 26-04-2021 and direct the respondents to release the

petitioner forthwith unless he is required to be detained in some

other matter.

6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There

shall be no order as to costs.

(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)

Deshmukh