Back
1998 Supreme(Bom) 630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N. Arumugham Vishnu Sahai, JJ.
Shri Hiraman Harischandra Bhoir ..... Petitioner.
Versus
Shri O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police others..... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 276 of 1998, decided on 14-10-1998.
Advocates appeared :
R.S. Chitnis, for the petitioner.
Rajiv Patil A.P.P., for respondents.
Important Points
Subject
Constitutional Law - ARTICLE 22
Act Referred
Headnote
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION - MAHARASHTRA PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF SLUMLORDS, BOOTLEGGERS, DRUG OFFENDERS AND DANGEROUS PERSONS ACT, 1981 - SECTION 2(B-1) - PUBLIC ORDER - CATEGORIZATION OF DETENU - MALA FIDE - ARTICLE 22(5) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - NON-COMMUNICATION OF DETAILS OF EXECUTION OF DETENTION ORDER - SECTION 8(1) OF THE ACT - CONFIRMATION OF DETENTION ORDER - GROUNDS OF DETENTION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE AND EXTENT - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - APPLICATION OF MIND BY DETAINING AUTHORITY - DETENTION ORDER - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the detention order passed against his son, Arun Hiraman Bhoir, under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (the Act). The grounds of detention alleged that the detenu was involved in various criminal activities, including assaulting police officers, threatening witnesses, and creating terror in the locality. The petitioner contended that the detention order was mala fide, that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the case, and that the detenu's categorization as a "dangerous person" was not mentioned in the detention order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the detention order was valid and dismissed the petition. It found that the grounds of detention contained sufficient evidence to support the detaining authority's conclusion that the detenu was a "dangerous person" within the meaning of section 2(b-1) of the Act. The court also found that the detaining authority had applied its mind to the case and that there was no mala fide intention. The court further held that the non-mentioning of the detenu's categorization in the detention order was a mere omission and did not vitiate the order.
Issues: 1. Whether the detention order was mala fide? 2. Whether the detaining authority had applied its mind to the case? 3. Whether the detenu's categorization as a "dangerous person" was mentioned in the detention order? 4. Whether the non-mentioning of the detenu's categorization in the detention order vitiated the order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The question of mala fides is a matter of fact to be decided in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, there was no evidence to support the petitioner's contention that the detention order was mala fide. 2. The grounds of detention contained sufficient evidence to support the detaining authority's conclusion that the detenu was a "dangerous person" within the meaning of section 2(b-1) of the Act. The detaining authority had also considered the detenu's past criminal record and the likelihood of his committing further offenses. 3. The detaining authority had categorized the detenu as a "dangerous person" in the grounds of detention. The non-mentioning of this categorization in the detention order was a mere omission and did not vitiate the order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the detention order.
2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu as culled out from the grounds of detention against the detenu are as stated hereunder:
On 14-4-1996 at about 11.00 hours, the detenu along with his father Hiraman Bhoir and others went to the place which belong to one Pratap Murlidhar Narvade at Chitalsar Manpada where fencing work was going on. Although the detenu was not concerned with the said property of Shri Narvade, the detenu along with his father and associates broke down and demolished the fencing and caused damage to the fencing. Due to the terror no one resisted but later on an offence was registered at Kapurbavdi Police Station vide C.R. No. 1-100/96 for the offence under sections 447, 427, 34 I.P.C. since such activities were found to be disturbing public peace and tranquillity and chapter proceedings were proceeded against the detenu vide Chapter Case No. 1/96 on 26-4-1996 at the instance of Kapurbavdi Police Station and the detenu was ordered by the Special Executive Magistrate to execute the bond and sureties of Rs. 5000/- on 9-8-1996 for keeping good behaviour for the period of six months.
However, on the expiry of the bond period the detenu continued to indulge in similar activities in the area of Manorma Nagar, and continued disturbing the public order. The continued involvement of the detenu showed his tendencies and inclination towards crime as a "Dangerous Person" in utter disregard of the existing law of the land.
The following incidents were quoted in the ground of detention.
One Shri Pandurang Kashinath Mane is staying at the Dhohali, Manorama Nagar, Ganeshwadi, Thane in the hutment colony which was unauthorisedly constructed by detenu's brother Ashok Bhoir. He lodged a complaint that on 12-3-97 when he was filling water from the tap, in front of detenu's brother's house detenu's brother Ashok Bhoir and watchman objected him and detenu's brother slapped and threatened him with dire consequences. Therefore, on the complaint of Shri Pandurang Mane, a non-cognizable case against detenu's brother Ashok Bhoir vide N.C. No. 191/97 under sections 323, 504 I.P.C. was registered at Kapurbavdi Police Station and the complainant was advised to file the case in the Court and get his grievances redressed. On this action by Shri Pandurang Mane the detenu was shocked and got very angry and on 12-3-97 at about 23.55 hours detenu along with his brothers and 25/26 men/women went to the Kapurbavdi Police Station and approached Police Sub-Inspector Sayyed who was holding Station House Charge and in a threatening tone told Sub-Inspector Sayyed that he was registering false complaint against them. The detenu and detenu's brother thereafter threatened the said Sub-Inspector Sayyed that they would complaint against him to the higher authorities and shouted loudly and grossly misbehaved at the Police Station. Thereafter the detenu along with his brother and his associates accompanying him manhandled the Police Staff present at the Police Station and abused and assaulted PSI. Gayake who fell on the ground. During the said assault PSI Gayake, P.Cs. Mahale and Pawar sustained minor injuries. P.S.I. Sayyed, Bhamare and other policemen immediately intervene
