2015 Supreme(Bom) 1223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
Rashid @ Jagga Shaukat Hussein Sayyed - Petitioner
Vs.
Commissioner of Police Mumbai & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2640 of 2015
Decided on : 11-08-2015
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Detention Order Challenge
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.504, S.506(2), S.387, S.427, S.385, S.42, S.506(ii), S.452, S.34
MAHARASHTRA PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF SLUMLORDS, BOOTLEGGERS, DRUG OFFENDERS AND DANGEROUS PERSONS ACT : S.3(2), S.12(1), S.3(3)
Headnote
Detention Order - Challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 3, Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the detention order based on his criminal activities and the reign of terror he unleashed in specific areas. The order was passed to prevent him from acting prejudicial to public order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was justified based on the petitioner's criminal activities, including robbery, extortion, and threatening law-abiding citizens with deadly weapons. The court also found that the order was passed after careful consideration of the material and was supported by the statements of witnesses and associates of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues raised included the application of mind in passing the detention order, verification of in-camera statements, and a variance in the contents of certain documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detention order was justified based on the petitioner's criminal activities and the atmosphere of terror he created. The court also found that the in-camera statements were verified and supported the detention order. Additionally, the court dismissed the claim of a variance in the contents of documents.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that no case was made out for interference in the impugned detention order.
Advocate Appeared:
Ms. Anjali Patil Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Jayesh P. Yagnik Additional Public Prosecutor for State
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-detenu challenges the order dated 22nd September, 2014 passed by the 1st respondent in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short 'M.P.D.A. Act'). By the impugned order, the 1st respondent has directed that the petitioner be preventively detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. By an order dated 26th September 2014 the Government of Maharashtra has granted approval to the detention order dated 22nd September, 2014. By an order dated 14th May 2015 the 2nd respondent-State of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 12 of the M.P.D.A. Act has confirmed the order of detention dated 22nd September, 2014.
2. The facts on the basis of which the detention order has been made as can be seen from the grounds of detention as served on the petitioner are that the petitioner is stated to be a violent and dangerous criminal having taken himself to the life of a criminal indulging into criminal activities for the sake of easy money in the locality of Gajanan Colony, Ahilyabai Holkar Marg, Lotus Colony, Road No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Bajiprabhu Deshpande Marg Shivaji Nagar, Govandi, Mumbai and the adjoining areas of Shivaji Nagar police station. The petitioner has formed a gang of like-minded criminals from the said locality. The petitioner has unleashed a reign of terror in the above areas and have become a perpetual danger to the life and property of people residing and carrying out their vocations in the said areas. The petitioner and his associates are moving about in these areas armed with weapons like knife, chopper, sword and committing offences of robbery, extortion, attempt to commit murder, assault, criminal intimidation and threatening law-abiding citizens on the point of deadly weapons. The petitioner and his associates are terrorizing the people so as to see that nobody would dare to help the victims. A detailed background of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner since 2008 and the specific instances are set out in the grounds of detention. It was reported that on 6th May 2014 in the evening at about 18.15 hours the complainant was chatting with his friend Imran in front of public toilet on Road No.3, Shivaji Nagar, Govandi. At that time, the petitioner along with his associates reached the said place armed with a knife. On the point of knife, the petitioner threatened the complainant and made a demand of Rs.5,000/- for conducting business in the area. The complainant was abused by the petitioner and his associates and threatened with dire consequences. Due to the threats and noticing knife in the hands of the petitioner, people got frightened and started running helter-skelter. The local residents closed their doors and windows due to fear. The petitioner raised his knife in the air and his associates accompanied the petitioner and left the place hurling abusive words. The complainant Noor Mohammed Faiyaz Khan registered a complaint at Shivaji Nagar police station for the offence under sections 387, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal code against the petitioner and his associates vide C.R.No.201 of 2014. Investigations were undertaken and a panchanama was prepared as also statements of about six witnesses were recorded to corroborate the relevant facts. Three associates of the petitioner were also arrested on 7th May 2014. Statements of these persons also came to be recorded on 14th May 2014. The petitioner was arrested on 12th May 2014. At the instance of the petitioner knife used by him in the above offence was recovered and seized by the police under a panchanama. The complainant had identified the petitioner as the person who demanded Rs.5000/- as a mont