JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---By means of this writ petition filed by the wife of the detenu, the detention order passed by the 1st respondent under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short the said Act) is being challenged. The respondent No. 1 by the detention order dated 14-10-1999 ordered detention of the detenu Raju Baburam Gupta to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. Though Mr. S.R. Chitnis, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised several legal contentions, in our view in the facts of the present case, this criminal writ petition deserves to be allowed on the ground which we indicate hereinafter.

3. From the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu, it is apparent that the detenu is accused in C.R. No. 221 of 1999 for offences under sections 342, 324, 387, 506(2), 114 I.P.C. r.w. sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act registered at Andheri Police Station on 16-6-1999. In the said crime registered at Andheri Police Station, the detenu was arrested on that very date. The detenu was ordered to be released on bail by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 2-7-1999 on detenu executing P.R. bond of Rs. 4000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. The detenu availed of the bail order on 3-7-1999. Besides the said criminal case in which the detenu is one of the accused, from the detention order it transpires that after the bail was granted to the detenu on 3-7-1999, two in-camera statements were recorded by the Senior Police Inspector on 25-7-1999 and 26-7-1999 for the incidents which are said to have taken place in the third week of May, 1999 and first week of June, 1999 respectively. The said two in-camera statements have been got verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The detaining authority has claimed privilege in the public interest in not disclosing the names of the witnesses whose statements were recorded in camera. The petitioner while challenging the detention order has set up the case that after the release of the detenu on 3-7-1999, false and fabricated statements were recorded which are now shown as in-camera statements. By additional ground, particularly ground (Z-B), the petitioner has set up the case that the in camera statements were recorded by inferior authority and also verified by inferior authority and therefore the claim of privilege under section 8(2) of the said Act is not justified in law.

4. While meeting ground EE in the affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority before this Court on 13-4-2000, it is denied that false and fabricated statements were recorded after the detenu was released on bail on 3-7-1999. It is further stated in the affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority that the in camera statements were verified by the higher grade Police Officer of the rank of A.C.P. In the subsequent affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority on 3-10-2000, in paragraph 5, the detaining authority reiterated the earlier reply given in response to paragraph EE and further stated that in view of the verification of the in camera statements by Senior Police Official of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police he was subjectively satisfied that the contents of the in-camera statements were true and genuine. In yet another affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority on 10-10-2000 it is stated that he was subjectively satisfied that all the materials on which he placed reliance to issue the order of detention was true and genuine. The reason for this is again given in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the said in-camera statements were verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. We are not referring to the affidavit of Mr. M.M. Singh since he is not the Detaining Authority who issued the order and his affidavit is of not much help on the point in issue.

5. In (Smt. Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak v. R.H. Mendon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document