JUDGMENT

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Habeas corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution) by one Bhupendra (hereinafter referred to as the `detenu)

3-4. Prayer in the writ petition was to quash and set aside the decision and order passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmednagar dated 23.4.2007 and the decision and order passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) by order dated 12.6.2007. The order of detention was passed by the respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981(in short the `Act). The detaining authority detained detenu under the Act. Grounds of detention were served on 23.4.2007. Several acts of the detenu were highlighted which according to the detaining authority warranted detention.

The appellant primarily took the stand that the order of detention indicated cases relating to law and order situation and had nothing to do with maintenance of public order and were stale to be considered relevant for the purpose of detention. It was submitted that there was no material to show that the alleged acts of the detenu disturbed the even tempo of life. The High Court did not find any substance and noted that the several offences were registered from 2005 till a few days before the order of detention. Preventive action taken against the detenu proved to be ineffective, he was called upon to execute bonds on various dates, but even after executing bonds for good behavior for a period of three years, the detenu breached the conditions of bond and the show cause notice was issued. In Camera statement of witnesses reference was made to an incident of 24.3.2001 and taking into account the activities of the detenu in the past there was a live link between the activities of the detenu and the date of passing of the impugned order of detention. This observation came to be made because of the stand of the detenu that there was no live link. Ultimately the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.

In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no live link. Reference was made to some of the incidents which to allegedly took in 2005 and in any event when preventive action in terms of Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Cr.P.C.) and Section 110 Cr.P.C. have been taken, there was no need for passing the order of detention. It was also pointed out that the alleged acts at the most related to law and order situation and having nothing to do with public order. It was further submitted that the statement of in camera witnesses should not have been relied upon by the detaining authority without forming an opinion as to whether that they represented the truth.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State and its functionaries on the other hand supported the order of detention.

6. The order of detention shows that the appellant is often hired on payment by anti-social elements for commission of violent crimes. The detenu and his associates always possessed deadly weapons and the instances highlighted related to 1.5.2005, 1.6.2005 and 24.2.2006 and a dispute between a particular community and the builders over the possession of land and the activities of the detenu, and lastly on 24.3.2007 it has been noted that serious riotous situation developed at a particular high school ground where hundreds of members of a particular community and assembled. It resulted in intense fear and panic situation because of the activities of detenu. It was also pointed out in the order of detention that various preventive action taken under Sections 107 and 110 Cr. P.C. yielded no positive results and the detenu continued