2013 Supreme(Bom) 630

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
A.S. OKA & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.
Ravi Hanumant Thorat
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Preventive Detention), Home Department (Special) & Others
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3920 of 2012
Decided on : 14-03-2013

Headnote:Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3(2) - Detention order. - Though identity of witnesses on whose evidence, detention order passed was not disclosed yet order of detention not vitiated. - In-camera statements of four witnesses which were recorded by the sponsoring authority are false and fabricated by the sponsoring authority to detain the detenu under M.P.D.A. Act and thus subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority was sham and unreal. Court has considered the record and the impugned order and also affidavits filed before us. Court cannot share the same view as canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner considering the material relied upon by the detaining authority in this case. As regards the contention of non-disclosure of identity of witnesses whose statements were recorded in- camera, it is fact of common knowledge that witnesses would be afraid of their life and are most hesitant and reluctant to come forward and complain against anti-socials; weapon-wielding elements who, by their conduct, are indulging in creating reign of terror, so also illegal activities i.e. criminal intimidation, extortion etc. which create fear in the mind of public and does affect public order and tranquility of the society. At the same time, it is necessary for the Detaining Authority to verify genuineness or otherwise of the allegations or accusations made against the detenu and record its subjective satisfaction. Non-disclosure of identity of witnesses whose statements may have been recorded in-camera, in order to ensure their personal security and shield them from the rage of ruffians is not by itself, fatal to the detention order, if such truth and genuineness of such statement made was duly verified by the Detaining Authority. In the present case, it is alleged that the detenu is carrying on dangerous activities and to prevent his activities, the order has been passed for detention which is impugned herein.

       Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3(2) - Preventive detention. - Preventive detention is not barred due to possibility of criminal prosecution or absence of it.

       Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3(2) - Preventive detention order. - Where detenue was on bail and detaining authority recorded its subjective satisfaction as to relevant material, therefore order of preventive detention, passed without challenging bail order, is not vitiated. - It is also contended that the detenu was detained since 27.8.2012 but the spouse of the detenu was not informed in writing about his place of detention. This submission has no force as the affidavits on record adequately refuted this contention. When the detaining authority has applied its independent mind to the relevant material placed on the record and recorded its subjective satisfaction as to the relevant material the fact that the bail orders were not challenged by the sponsoring authority in the superior Courts would not, by itself, militate against the valid preventive detention order. This is so because when emergent steps are required to be taken to prevent recurrence of criminal acts by the subject who is known to have frequently indulged in criminal acts, the authority concerned is not expected to resort to time consuming process to propose for cancellation of bail orders granted. It is well settled that the cancellation of bail can be on proof of overwhelming ground when the Court may cancel the bail order only when there is necessity for the cancellation of bail in rare cases.

       Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3(2) - Detention order. - Where delay in issuing detention order was neither deliberate nor intentional therefore delay not vitiates order of detention.

       Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3(2) - Detention order. - Withholding of irrelevant material, not affecting decision of Detaining Authority, would not vitiate detention order. - In the case in hand the exceptionally detailed and reasoned order, listing the criminal acts of the detenu with reference to the details of the statements of witnesses filthily abused and terrorized by the detenu, exhibited the dangerous tendency of the detenu to use variety of dangerous weapons like sword, knife, wooden log etc. Reign of terror unleashed by the detenu and his associates. The detaining authority has considered details of statements made by the four witnesses, who came forward and gave statements on condition of anonymity-to keep their names secret. Normally no one would venture due to fear to come forward to give his statement against the habitual or professional criminal or offender who may indulge in acts of terrorizing the people in the locality concerned.