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

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 14-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'..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 de-
tention 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 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, 
• 
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 16-9-
1985, 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 juris-
diction 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 
-f 
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. 
• 
We do not think it necessary to go into all the grounds urged 
before us by the petitioner's c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.