SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Bom) 537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
J.N. Patel P.S. Brahme, JJ.
Mohammad Mubarak Mohammad Umar.... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Department.... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 57 of 2001, decided on 18-6-2001.
Advocates appeared :
R.M. Patwardhan, for petitioner.
A.P.P., for respondents.

Headnote:

heabeus corpse - Detention under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 3(1)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged his detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, based on his involvement in serious offences and recent criminal activities. The Detaining Authority observed the petitioner's continuous engagement in violent and desperate acts, which were found to be extremely prejudicial to public order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the detention order was vitiated due to non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority, lack of live link between the alleged last criminal activity and the detention order, and absence of satisfaction about the truthfulness of in-camera statements. The court quashed the detention order and directed the petitioner's release.

Issues: Non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority, lack of live link between the alleged last criminal activity and the detention order, absence of satisfaction about the truthfulness of in-camera statements

Ratio Decidendi: The detention order was quashed due to the influence of past history on the Detaining Authority, lack of live link between the alleged activities and the detention order, and impairment of subjective satisfaction regarding the truthfulness of in-camera statements.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the detention order dated 12-7-2000 was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

JUDGMENT - P.S. BRAHME, J.:---The petitioner Mohammad Mubarak s/o Mohammad Umar has approached this Court by way of this writ petition for a writ of heabeus corpse challenging his detention dated 12-7-2000 passed by respondent No. 2-The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur invoking provisions under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "said Act"). Alongwith the said order the detenu was served with the grounds of detention which was also dated 12-7-2000. The order of detention and the grounds of detentions have been annexed in the writ petition as Annexure No. 1. The State Government approved the order of detention on 12-7-2000 on 20-7-2000 vide Annexure 2. The order of detention came to be confirmed by the State Government on 18-8-2000 vide Annexure 3.

2. It is revealed from the grounds of detention that the detention of the petitioner is founded on involvement of the petitioner in 5 serious offences enumerated in paragraph 2 of the grounds, as also his recent criminal activities namely involvement in Crime No. 549/99 under sections 147, 248, 149, 324 of I.P.C. registered on complaint dated 16-9-99 lodged by complainant Arif Shaikh s/o Shaikh Rahim with Police Station Sakkardara and his involvement in Crime No. 200/2000 for offences under sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506 read with section 4/25 of the Arms Act read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. On complaint filed on 23-3-2000 by the complaint Shaikh Asif s/o Shaikh Rahim with Police Station Sakkardara and his further involvement in commission of offence as disclosed in in-camera statement namely witness 'A' witness 'B' and witness 'C' stated in the grounds of detention in paragraph Nos. 6.1.1, 6.2.1 and 6.3.1 respectively.

3. In the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has observed that since the year 1994 the petitioner has been continuously engaging himself in the commission of violent and desperate acts such as roiting armed with deadly weapons and committed murder, attempt to murder, voluntarily causing hurt and robbery at the point of deadly weapons, illegal possession of deadly weapons and flouting the prohibitory orders in force. Such criminal acts of the petitioner have terrorised the law abiding and peace loving citizens residing in the area of Police Station, Sakkardara, Nagpur. Such activities found to be extremely prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Said criminal record of the petitioner in the past shows that the petitioner has committed five serious offences as given below in paragraph which shows his inclination/tendencies towards committing the offences. These offences are not considered while formulating detention order. In respect of offences registered at Crime No. 549/99 the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and his associates in the Court of J.M.F.C., Corporation Court No. 1, Nagpur vide C.C. No. 590/99 dated 18-12-99 and the case is pending for trial. In respect of offences registered at Crime No. 200/2000 arising out of complaint dated 22-3-2000 the case is under police investigation.

4. The first in-camera statement witness 'A' relates to the incident that took place in the month of March 2000, wherein the petitioner has forcibly took out an amount of Rs. 20/- from the pocket of the witness putting him under threat to kill him on the point of knife. The second in-camera statement of witness 'B' again relates to offence which took place in the month of March, 2000, wherein the petitioner alleged to have given threats to the witness by whipping out knife and pointing out it towards him and forcibly took out some amount. The third in-camera statement of witness 'C' relates to the incident that took place in the month of March 2000 wherein the petitioner extracted amount from the witness by putting him under the threat.

5. The Detaining Authority was subjectively satisfied that



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top