JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE D.G., J.:---Heard Mr. Naresh Khandelwal alongwith Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner and Mr. I.S. Thakur, Addition P.P. for the State and Detaining Authority.

2. 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, (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act) by detention order dated 15-4-2002. The grounds of detention are of the even date. The detention is challenged on number of grounds, however, Mr. Naresh Khandelwal alongwith Mr. Tripathi restricted himself to the ground No. 5(xiii) and other grounds. Since we are allowing this petition on ground No. 5(xiii), we do not think it necessary to consider other grounds. We will be considering one C.R. which is made basis of the detention order and affects public order vide C.R. No. 542 of 2001 registered at Saki Naka Police Station.

3. So far as the facts pertaining to the C.R. are concerned, they are, given in the grounds of detention in para 4(a)(i). The entire incident that has taken place on 26-9-2001 and 27-9-2001 in the office premises of Joshi Group of Company, only one part of the incident is stated to have taken place at the main gate when the watchman Dinesh Shrivastav of the Joshi Group of Company tried to take search of petitioner detenue and his associates. While said Dinesh Shrivastav was taking search, the associates of the petitioner opposed and pushed him aside and started running towards auto-rickshaw which was already engaged by them. The search was to be taken for mobile phone and it is alleged that when the security guard Dinesh Shrivastav, Santosh Sawant and Santosh Singh chased the detenue and his associates, suddenly the associates of the detenue by name, Samirali and Nandkrishore @ Tinku took out a revolver, pointed it towards Dinesh Shrivastav, Santosh Sawant and Santosh Singh and threatened them that if they proceeded further they would be killed. The learned A.P.P., tried to contend that even taking out the revolver in open space is sufficient to create law and order. However, we are not in agreement with him, because in the next sentence what is stated in that para is that, due to this incident Shri Dinesh Shrivastav, Santosh Sawant and Santosh Singh were terribly frightened. It is, therefore, clear that at the time nobody was there on the road and nobody was frightened or feared because of taking out the revolver. This incident has occurred on 26-9-2001.

4. So far as incident dated 27-9-2001 is concerned, which has occurred in the office of the said Joshi Group of Company and it is about the conversation on telephone and the threats given. That incident also does not affect the public order. However, this will not help the detenue in revoking the detention order because the two in-camera statements do show that the incidents stated by witnesses "A" "B" are affecting the public order.

5. So far as ground 5(xiii) is concerned, it is the contention of the detenue as per the C.R. given above, he got the order of bail on 29-1-2002. The police could not file charge-sheet within the stipulated period of 60 days. The bail order is annexed in the compilation at page 435 from which it is clear that because the charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days, the detenue petitioner was allowed to be released on bail of Rs. 5,000/- cash and one surety in like amount. The detenue availed of bail only on 4-3-2002 but the two in-camera statements were recorded by the police on 5-3-2002 and thus according to Mr. Tripathi, it is highly suspicious and the two in-camera statements were recorded only on detain the detenue under the provisions of M.P.D.A. Act.

6. Mr. Tripathi further contended that, in both the statements "A" "B" what has been narrated by witnesses "A" "B" are alleged to have taken place in the first week of October 2001 and 3rd week of September, 2001 respectively by witnesses "A" "B". He therefore contended that, f