(ii) The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case." . We are of the opinion that this aspect of the matter is not properly appreciated by the detaining authority. There is no subjective 20 902.Cri.WP-1527-2023.doc satisfaction on this aspect of the matter and the impugned order is unsustainable.
33. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made submissions on the purport of notice under Section 41(A)(1). However our bench has taken a view in the matter of Vinod (supra). The relevant portion of paragraph no.36 is as follows :
"36. It is to be noted that Section 41-A (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be resorted to by the Investigating Officer before arresting an individual and that provision would regulate his powers to arrest an individual. Needless to state that the arrest contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure for carrying out the investigation into a crime by resorting to custodial interrogation would be essentially for completing the investigation. Suffice for the purpose to observe that in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.; (2014) 8 SCC 273 the Supreme Court has laid down several guidelines which have to be borne in by the investigating Officer before arresting a person. We are pointing out the law to demonstrate that the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the very fact that the I.O. did not feel necessary to arrest the petitioner although the crimes were registered would be indicative of the fact that even he did not require the petitioner to be sent behind the bars, is fallacious. The arrest for carrying out investigation into a crime would be for a limited purpose of facilitating the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation. Such arrest cannot be looked upon as an action which can be aimed at preventing the accused from indulging in a similar activity rather any such approach would be inconsistent with the mandate of law laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra). The action of preventive detention under the preventive detention laws would be aimed at abating the specific activities of an individual whereas the arrest for the purpose of investigation cannot be aimed at preventing him from indulging in any such activity. Precisely for this reason, we are not in agreement with the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that petitioner being not arrested in the crimes should be taken into account to draw an inference that even the I.O. did not feel it necessary to abate his unlawful activities. In short the 21 902.Cri.WP-1527-2023.doc purpose of arrest in respect of crime is aimed at conclusion of the investigation, whereas, detention of a person under the preventive detention law is to prevent him from indulging in certain activities."