Preventive detention vitiated by non-consideration of vital bail order and stale incidents failing to sustain subjective satisfaction.

Preventive detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act was held invalid where the detenu's recent bail order was not placed before, or shown to be within the knowledge of, the detaining authority. The bail order was treated as vital material for forming subjective satisfaction because a person at liberty on bail stands on a different footing from one in custody. The Court also noted that the earlier incidents relied upon were too remote in time to sustain detention. On that basis, the detention order could not be upheld and the challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority was not informed of, and did not consider, the detenu's earlier bail order, and whether the prior criminal incidents were too remote to sustain detention.

Analysis: The detention was founded on the detenu's alleged activities under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The record showed that the detenu had already been enlarged on bail in the most recent case before the detention order was passed, and that the bail order was neither placed before nor shown to have been within the knowledge of the detaining authority. The Court treated the bail order as vital material for formation of subjective satisfaction, since a person already at liberty on bail stands on a different footing from one in custody. The Court also noticed that the earlier offences relied upon by the detaining authority lacked proximity to the detention order.

Conclusion: The detention order was invalid and could not be sustained; the challenge succeeded in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, non-placement and non-consideration of a vital bail order before the detaining authority vitiates subjective satisfaction, and stale or remote incidents cannot by themselves justify detention.

---