The Petitioner has challenged the order of detention No.TC/PD/ M.P.D.A./21 /2006, dated 21st July, 2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug- offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (M.P.D.A. Act) (the Act).

2. The Petitioner has applied for grant of the Writ of Habeas Corpus upon such a challenge.

3. The Petitioner is stated to be a "dangerous person" as defined in the Act.

4. The detention order dated 31st July, 2006 served upon the Petitioner relates to two criminal complaints filed against the Petitioner for which criminal cases have been registered against him on 17th January, 2006 and 2nd February, 2006 as the main grounds of detention sought by the Respondents. The detention order further relies upon statements of two witnesses, without disclosing their names and other particulars recorded by the Respondents showing how the Petitioner as a dangerous person required to be detained by the Respondents.

5. It may be mentioned that the true and correct translation of the statements of these witnesses recorded in Marathi language have not been provided to the Petitioner. The Respondent's Advocate, therefore, fairly concedes that those statements cannot be looked into. Hence, we deem it appropriate not to refer them.

6. The grounds of detention, therefore, necessarily require reliance upon the two criminal cases filed against the Petitioner for sustaining the detention order.

7. It is the case of the Respondents as reflected in the detention order, that the Petitioner has a violent and terrorising nature and is a Goonda as reflected in the extract of Goonda register maintained by the relevant Police station being Mumbra Police Station. It is their case that the Petitioner indulges in criminal activities of wrongful restraint, rioting, extortion, hurt, house- trespass etc., which are punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The arrest of the Petitioner and the consequent criminal cases against him are in respect of the aforesaid offences.

8. The first offence, the details of which are enumerated in the detention order, is based upon a criminal complaint of one Riyaz Patel. One Firoz Khan was one of his workers.

The criminal complaint is that on 16th January, 2006 the Petitioner and his associates without any reason thrashed Firoz Khan who narrated the incident to the complainant. The complainant questioned the Petitioner about the assault. The Petitioner assaulted the Complainant with hockey sticks all over his body, causing injuries to both his knees and left elbow. He also assaulted another employee. This caused fear and panic in the entire area. None came forward to help the complainant or to resist the Petitioner until he escaped. The complainant was shifted to the hospital where he was admitted, and the case was registered. Three witnesses corroborated his statement. The Petitioner and his associate absconded and were arrested only on 7th February, 2006.

9. The other criminal case against the Petitioner was upon a complaint filed by a grocer Yogeshkumar Patel, who carried on business with his brother in the area. On 2nd February, 2006 at about 23.00 hours the Petitioner along with three associates demanded Rs.1,000/- from the complainant. When the demand was not satisfied the Petitioner called his associates and thrashed the complainant with fist blows. Another associate of the Petitioner hit the complainant with a beer bottle on his head and caused injury. When the demand of money was denied, the Petitioner and his associates broke jars from his grocery shop and caused damage, and associate of the Petitioner threatened the complainant at the point of a razor. This generated fear in the entire area and none came to help the victims. On the contrary the neighbours closed their shops and panic was created in the area. The complainant was moved to the hospital and the criminal case came to be registered. Four wit