Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 5-A - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5) - Order of detention - Grounds for - Should be clear and not be vague - Grounds not disclosing details regarding alleged criminal cases registered against detenu - Detenu prejudiced in making effective representation - Order of detention based on such ground not sustainable. - The Advocate for the petitioner is justified in contending that the detenu is entitled to make effective representation against the order of detention and therefore the grounds in support of the detention order should be clear and should not be vague. As the said ground does not disclose details regarding the alleged criminal cases stated to have been registered against the detenu and the alleged ex tortion of money from ’R’. More certainly the detenu was prejudiced in that regard in making effective representation, and the said order of detention based on the said ground cannot be sustained on that Court.

       Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 5-A - Order of detention - Made on more than one ground - Even though order of detention not sustainable under first ground in support of detention - Same cannot be held to be bad in law - As it finds support from two other grounds. - Even though the order of detention cannot be sustained under the first ground in support of detention, the same cannot be held to be bad in law, as it finds support from two other grounds based on in camera statements of the said wit nesses.

       Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 5-A - Order of detention - Statements of two witnesses - Detenu and his associates created a reign of terror in localities and engaged in extortion of money from people at point of Revolver - Threatening and assaulting those who refused to give money demanded - Victims not ready to complain due to fear - Activities of detenu sufficient to affect tempo of life of society causing disturbance of public order - Order of detention on such ground justified. - The in-camera statement of witness ’A’ clearly discloses that it was widely discussed in the business circles that the detenu and his associates were the members of one Arun Gawali gang and were engaged in extortion spree and that the detenu and his associates were involved in the assaulting, threatening and destroying of the belongings of people who refused to accede to their demand. considering the statement of the said witness, it was observed by the detaining authority in the grounds in support of that detention order that the detenu and his associates are the members of underworld kingpin Arun Gawali and the victims are mortally scared and are reluctant to come forward with their complaints. The activities of the detenu also disclosed from his statement that he was engaged in extortion of money and for that purpose, did not hesitate to threaten the members of the public with the help of revolver. Similar is the statement of the witness ’E’ which discloses that the detenu and his associates had created a reign of terror in the localities of Worli, Koliwada, Janata Colony, Rumade Chowk, Mahakali Nagar Zopadpatti and the adjoining areas and had engaged in extortion of money from the people at the point of revolver threatening and assaulting those who refused to give the money demanded by him and also used to destroy the articles and belongings of his victims, however those victims were not ready to complain against him due to the fear of reprisal at his hands. These narrations by the witness clearly disclose the involvement of the detenu in those activities which are sufficient to affect the even tempo of life of the society which can result in disturbance of the public order. Hence the challenge on this ground is also without substance..

       Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 5-A - Order of detention - Subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority - Order of detention not relates to only one instance referred in charge-sheet - Order issued after considering various activities of detenu disclosed from investigation - Non-seeking for cancellation of bail by authorities - Would not vitiate subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority against detenu - Conditional bail required attendance of detenu at Police Station every day. - It is to be noted that apart from the grounds of detention the affidavit in reply clearly discloses that the detaining authority did take into consideration the fact that the detenu was released on conditional bail, as well as the fact that the same was not sufficient to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and clamping of detention order was the only remedy. Undoubtedly the law of detention is to prevent future activities on the part of a person to be detained and it is not to be used as punitive action. Merely because the authorities did not move for cancellation of the bail that will not amount to vitiate the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority against the detenu in each and every case. It is also to be borne in mind that the order relating to the bail is in relation to the offence to which investigation is carried out and charge-sheet is filed whereas the order of detention in question does not relate to only one instance which is referred to in the charge-sheet. Undoubtedly, the order of detention has been issued after taking into consideration the various activities of the detenu disclosed from the investigation as well as the in-camera statements of the witnesses. That apart the conditional bail merely required the attendance of the detenu at the police station for a period of two hours every day. That apart, criteria for grant of bail and the criteria to be followed to ascertain the need for detention of a person in custody though in some aspects may be overlapping are not essentially the same. The preventive detention is necessarily to prevent a person from indulging in an illegal activities in future. Being so, taking into consideration the grounds in support of detention order and the explanation furnished by the detaining authority in the affidavit in reply the first ground of challenge is to be held as being without any substance.