At this juncture, it is necessary to numberice some of the annexures to the detention order filed by the Commissioner of Police.
The petitioner earlier had filed a similar Writ Petition No.
Copies of the FIR pertaining to the offences registered against the petitioner under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 506 2 Indian Penal Code.
Copies of the bail applications filed by the petitioner in the cases registered against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act, and Indian Penal Code and companyies of the relevant bail orders whereby the petitioner was released on bail.
He further submits that these documents were relevant and material and when the petitioner made a request to supply all these documents, the same was rejected and according to the learned Counsel the refusal amounts to violation of the petitioners rights under Article 22 5 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the detention has to be held as illegal.
The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is number an enlightened person and is number companyversant with his companystitutional rights and earlier he was number aware of the existence of some relevant documents namely Copies of the FIRs pertaining to the offences registered against the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act in the years 1988 and 1989.
1980 Supp1.
The petitioner has been detained under Section 3 1 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act of 1985 by an order of detention dated 10.5.1989 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City.
302 of 1989.
The present Writ Petition is filed for the same relief but on the basis of some grounds which, according to the petitioner, were number urged in that Writ Petition.
Ultimately the learned Judge in that case held that there was numberinfringement of the provisions of Article 22 5 .
Reddy, J. This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indian seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus.
