JUDGMENT - KANADE V.M., J.:---The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai dated 11th November, 2002 while exercising powers vested in him under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) hereinafter referred to as "M.P.D.A.". The brief facts which are relevant to decide this petition are as under :-

2. The order of detention was passed by the Detaining Authority on 11th November, 2002. The order of detention as well as the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 14th November, 2002. The Detaining Authority has relied upon two cases which have been filed against the petitioner as also on the basis of two in-camera statements of two witnesses recorded.

3. It is stated in the ground of detention that the petitioner was arrested on 15th April, 2002 in connection with an offence which was registered vide C.R. No. 58 of 2002 registered by Agripada Police Station under sections 395, 397, 452, 342 read with section 34 I.P.C. The petitioner was also arrested in connection with an offence which was registered vide C.R. No. 119 of 2002 by Kherwadi Police Station under sections 392, 397, 384 read with section 34 I.P.C. In both these C.Rs. though the bail was granted by the Court, the petitioner did not avail of the bail order. In the first case, i.e. C.R. No. 58 of 2002 an order of bail was passed on 25th September, 2002 and in the other C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 119 of 2003 an order of bail was passed on 9th September, 2002. The order of detention was served on the petitioner while he was still in custody.

4. The Detaining Authority has also relied upon two in-camera statements, which were recorded on 28th August, 2002 and 31st August, 2003. In the statements of the witness A which was recorded on 28th August, 2002 the witness has mentioned that the petitioner and his associates always possessed deadly weapons such as revolver, knife and chopper and that the petitioner and his associates pretended to be members of Rajan Gang and they terrorised and extorted money from the businessmen and common public of the same locality. The said witness has given the details of one incident which had taken place. In the second week of April 2002 at about 20.00 hrs. it is alleged that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the owner of a garage and as a result thereof, the owner gave Rs. 10,0000/- and thereafter, it is alleged that due to fear of retaliation the witness did not lodge a complaint with the police. In the grounds of detention it is mentioned in para 4(c)(ii) that the statement of witness B was recorded on 31st August, 2002 in which the witness has stated that the petitioner and his associates extorted ransom from shop keepers, businessmen and hawkers at the point of deadly weapons and committed robbery. It is also stated that the said witness has stated in his statement that the petitioner and his associates had on several occasions, extorted Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 2000/- from the witnesses under the threat in the name of Rajan Gang. It is also mentioned that the petitioner and his associates has created reign of terror in the said locality as a result of which nobody dared to complain against the petitioner and his associates. The said witness also has stated about the incident in the second week of April 2002 which had happened at about 19.00 hrs. in the shop of the witness where the petitioner and his associates forcibly took out Rs. 15,000/- from the drawer of the shop.

5. The Detaining Authority in para 5 has stated that it was satisfied that the petitioner was a dangerous person within the meaning of section 2(1)(b) of the M.P.D.A. and, therefore, he has become a potential threat to the society at large and that the even tempo of life in the society was disturbed and under these circumstances the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document