V. 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 by the detenu'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 detenu as the petitioner in this judgment.
2. The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated January 15, 1986, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bombay who is Respondent 2 herein, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The grounds of detention are given in Annexure C. The detention is based on three incidents; one on September 16, 1985, the other on December 1, 1985 and the third on December 25, 1985; the offences involved in the three cases being under Sections 324 and 336 IPC, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and 452 IPC respectively. There are three cases pending in respect of these three incidents.
3. The order of detention discloses that the people within the jurisdiction of Bandra Police Station in Greater Bombay are experiencing 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”.
4. 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 other person. The petitioner was an undertrial prisoner at the time the detention order was made.
5. 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 detenu had moved applications for bail in the three pending cases and that he was enlarged on bail on January 13, 1986, January 14, 1986 and January 15, 1985. We have gone through the detention order carefully. There is absolutely no mention in the order about the fact that the petitioner was an undertrial 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 forthwith. The appeal and the writ petition are allowed without any order as to costs.