Back
1999 Supreme(Bom) 609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sahai Vishnu Chandrasekhara Das T.K., JJ.
Jayaram @ Anna Kampani Gowda .... Petitioner.
Versus
Commissioner of Police others.... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 10 of 1999, decided on 18-8-1999.
Advocates appeared :
Prakash Shetty, for petitioner.
Ms. V.K. Tahilramani, P.P., for respondents.
Headnote:Section 3(1)-Detention of a person-in-custody-Validity- Though detenu was in custody in a case registered under Sections 307 and 387, Indian Penal Code etc, and had not applied for bail in the said CR at the time of passing of detention order, there was cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it could have concluded that he was likely to be released from custody on bail in the near future and likely to revert to prejudicial activities-Contention therefore that there was no compelling reason for detaining authority to pass impugned order of detention against detenu while being in custody rejected.-The petitioner was detained under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 in order to prevent him from indulging in criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the grounds of detention, there was a reference to one CR No. 238 of 1998 arising from the complaint made under Sections 307, 387, 120-B and 34, Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, The Petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that he was in custody in CR No. 238 of 1998 under Section 307, Indian Penal Code ete. when the impugned detention order was passed against him and since he had not applied for bail in the said CR, there was no compelling reason for the detaining authority to pass the impugned detention order. It is to be noted that the detention order can be passed against a person-in-custody provided the grounds of detention show: (i) that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there are compelling reasons justifying the detention despite his being in custody Compelling reasons implies that there must be some cogent material before the Detaining Authority on the basis of which, it may be satisfied : (a) that the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future; and (b) taking into consideration his antecedent activities, he is likely to revert to prejudicial activities after being released from custody making it imperative to preventively detain him. The Detaining Authority had not only shown his awareness that the detenu was in custody in CR No. 238 of 1998 but, had also mentioned therein that he may be granted bail under the normal law of the land in due course and in view of the detenus tendencies and inclinations he was satisfied that once he was released on bail, he was likely to revert to the similar activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. Even though no application for bail was made by the petitioner-detehu in the said CR by the time, there was no impediment in law for him to make such an application at any point of time and there was always reasonable likelihood that in case he made such an application, he would be granted bail. There was cogent material before the Detaining Authority on the basis of which, it could have concluded that the detenu was likely to be released from custody. The contention of detenu as made could not therefore be accepted. 1995 Cri LJ 2657 : AIR 1990 SC 1196-Relied.
-Sections 3(1) and 2(a) Explanation, 2(iv)-Plea raised that even assuming the prejudicial acts on the part of detenu stipulated in the grounds of detention to be true, the same would amount to violation of law and order and not public order-Grounds of detention however clearly showed that detenu was a dangerous person whose acts directly caused harm, danger, alarm and a feeling of insecurity amongst a section of the public and disturbed the even tempo of life in the locality-Contention as raised in the circumstances rejected. AIR 1970 SC 1228-Relied.
The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 3rd October, 1998, was served on the petitioner-detenue on 6th October, 1998. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and C respectively to this petition.
2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenue necessitating the issuance of the impugned detention order, as contained in the grounds of detention in brief are as under:---
You (petitioner) are an active member of the Amar Naik gang and you and your associates have created a reign of terror in the minds of the public in the localities of Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Marol Maroshi Road and the areas adjoining thereto within the jurisdiction of the Sakinaka Police Station in Brihan Mumbai.
You (petitioner) and your associates armed with deadly weapons such as revolver do not hesitate to use the same while committing offences like assault, attempt to commit murder, extortion of money and criminal intimidation.
Action taken against you under the normal law of the land was inadequate and with a view to prevent you from indulging in criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, you were detained on 1st February, 1996 under the National Security Act vide detention Order No. 39/PCB/Z-II dated 30th January, 1996, which was confirmed by the Government of Maharashtra and you were released after the completion.
2-B. The in-camera statement of witness A is contained in Ground No. 5(b-i) witness act in his statement which was recorded on 12-8-1998 has stated that he knows you (the petitioner) as notorious goonda affiliated to Amar Naik gang. In the past, you had thriced telephoned him and demanded Rs. 10,000/- on threats. He has stated that one day in the last week of May 1998 at about 5 p.m., you along with the two unknown associates entered his shop by putting a revolver on him; threatened him to give the monthly hafta immediately; and threatened also to shoot him. On seeing this, the customers present in the shop ran away. The passers by also started running away. At this point of time, your associates whipped out choppers resulting in the witness getting terribly frightened and his paying Rs. 10,000/- to you. While leaving, you again threatened the witness not to inform the police or else he would be killed. Consequently, he did not inform the police.
Witness B's statement is referred to in Ground No. 5(b-ii). It was recorded on 12th August, 1998 and he has stated therein that you (the petitioner) are a notorious goonda and belong to the Amar Naik Gang. You and your unknown associates collect monthly hafta money from the shop keepers and jewellers. In the past you and your associates had visited his place of business and threatened him to pay Rs. 25,000/- as monthly hafta money. Thereafter, you had telephoned him and demanded money on threats. One day in the second week of June, 1998 at about 23 hours, you along with your three unknown associates came near his place of business and called him out. You then demanded monthly hafta money. Witness told you (the petitioner) that he would ask his partner and then pay. On this you got enraged and whipped out a revolver and put at his temple and demanded Rs. 25,000/- immediately and threatened him that else he would be killed. Consequently, he paid you Rs. 10,000/-. You threatened him to pay the remaining amount within 2/3 days and while leaving, you threatened him in terms tha
