Back
2003 Supreme(Bom) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Radhakrishnan S. Bhosale D.B, JJ.
Shahid Mohd. Yusuf Shaikh .... Petitioner.
Versus
M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police others.... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 856 of 2002, decided on 26-2-2003.
Advocates appeared :
U.N. Tripathi, for petitioner.
Mrs. Aruna Pai, A.P.P., for State.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a detention order can be validly passed against a person in custody if the Detaining Authority has reasons to believe, based on reliable material, that there is a possibility of the detenue being released on bail and would indulge in prejudicial activities.
Headnote:
M.P.D.A. Act - Challenge to detention order under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the grounds of detention under the M.P.D.A. Act, particularly focusing on the petitioner's involvement in criminal cases and the likelihood of being released on bail. The court analyzed the application of section 3(1) and the sufficiency of material before the Detaining Authority to justify the detention order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that there was no necessity to detain a person already in judicial custody and no compelling necessity was disclosed in the grounds of detention. The petitioner contended that the Detaining Authority did not have any cogent material before him and had passed the detention order without proper application of mind.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Detaining Authority had considered the antecedents of the detenue and had reasons to believe that the detenue was likely to be released on bail in the near future and would continue prejudicial activities. The court upheld the detention order, stating that the Detaining Authority had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances and had sufficient material to form an opinion about the detenue's likelihood of being released on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed if the Detaining Authority has reasons to believe, based on reliable material, that there is a possibility of the detenue being released on bail and would indulge in prejudicial activities. The court emphasized that it is not for the Court to reappreciate the material on record and substitute its judgment for the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and upheld the detention order, stating that the Detaining Authority had applied its mind and had sufficient material to form an opinion about the detenue's likelihood of being released on bail and continuing prejudicial activities.
2. A perusal of the grounds of detention indicate that as far as the petitioner is concerned three criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner. In the first case there is an incident which took place on 15th November, 2001. The details of which (as set out in the grounds of detention) are as under:---
"Investigation revealed that on 15-11-2001 at about 02.30 hours you and your associates Iran Mohmed Kazi, Sudhakar Baliram Yadav and Imtiyaz Mohiddin Shaikh engaged the M/Taxi No. MH-01-X-2963 at Bhendi Bazar and asked taxi driver Shri Babu Marianna @ Lokeshkumar to take taxi at Ferry Wharf. You occupied the front seat next to taxi driver and your associates Sudharkar, Imtiyaz and Imran sat on the rear seat. When taxi reached near Wadibunder junction you asked taxi driver Babu Marianna to stop the taxi and as soon as the taxi stopped, your associate Imran whipped out a knife and kept it on the neck of taxi driver Babu Marianna and threatened him by saying that ^^txg ls fgyuk ugh] ugh rks dkV Mkywaxk^^. Your associate Sudhakar caught hold of both the hands of taxi driver Babu Marianna from behind and you started searching his person and removed cash from his pockets. You and your associates Imran, Sudhakar and Imtiyaz got down from the taxi and threatened taxi driver Babu Marianna not to move his taxi till you all leave the place or else he would be killed. At that time the taxi driver Babu Marianna also got down from taxi and caught hold of you. When your associate Sudhakar caught hold the taxi driver Babu Marianna from behind and you whipped out a knife and gave a blow of it on the neck of taxi driver Babu Marianna when he sustained fatal injury. Then you all ran away from the place. Injured taxi driver Babu Marianna chased you all for a while and came back to his taxi and collapsed there. Due to the incident, nearby people gathered there. Some of the residents got scared and changed their sleeping places due to fear."
3. The second incident with regard to which the criminal case has been registered against the detenue is an incident which took place on 19-12-2001. The details of which as set out in the grounds of detention are as under:---
"On 19-12-2001 at about 03.00 hours Shri Laxman Bechan Saroj had parked his M/Taxi No. MMO-1484 at Abhudaya Nagar, Kalachowky and was waiting for passengers. At that time, you and your associates, Imran, Sudhakar and Imtiyaz engaged his taxi and asked Shri Saroj to take you and your said associates to Mazgaon. You sat on the front seat next to taxi driver and your said associates sat on the rear seat. Shri Saroj started his M/taxi and reached near Chaita towers building, Shivdas Champsi Marg, Mazgaon, when you asked the taxi driver to stop the taxi and gave note of Rs. 50 as fare. While Shri Saroj was giving balance amount to you, your associate Imran whipped out a knife and kept it on the neck of Shri Saroj and your associate Sudhakar caught hold both of his hands from behind. You forcibly removed Rs. 1100/- from the shirt pocket of Shri Saroj. Your associate Imtiyaz removed the key of the taxi. You threatened Shri Saroj by sayi
