The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act was illegal and vitiated due to non-recording of satisfaction by the detaining authority, lack of proper verification of incamera statements, and absence of compelling necessity for detention.

V.K. Jadhav, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent at admission stage. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the legal and Constitutional validity of the order of detention bearing D.O. No. PCB/DET/3239/2016 came to be passed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No. L.V. of 1981) (Amendment-1996)(Amendment-2009)(Amendment-2015) (hereinafter referred to as M.P.D.A. Act, 1981) by respondent No. 1.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that detaining authority has referred to and relied on a single solitary incident i.e. Crime No. 320/2016 under sections 307, 336, 427, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149 of IPC r/w 4/25 of Arms Act 1959; read with section 37(1)/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and five incamera statements of the witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C, 'D' and 'E' respectively. The detaining authority has not recorded his/its satisfaction on the grounds of detention to the effect that the authority has gone through the contents of in-camera statements and verified them. The Detaining Authority has not seen the incamera statement copies nor endorsed on said statements as "seen'. The detaining authority has not discussed with the Assistant Commissioner of Police regarding truthfulness of the incident revealed from those in-camera statements. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law for non-recording satisfaction by the detaining authority with regard to those in-camera statements.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is in custody in connection with crime No. 320/2016. The petitioner preferred Bail Application before the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, which came to be rejected on 7.9.2016. The detaining authority on the very next day i.e. on 8.9.2016 passed the order of detention. There was no cogent material before the detaining authority to arrive at a conclusion that there is imminent possibility of the petitioner's release on bail. On this backdrop there was no compelling necessity to detain the petitioner. The order of detention is illegal, without application of mind and thus liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on the basis of the material placed before the detaining authority, the petitioner cannot be called as a 'dangerous person' as defined in section 2 of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981. It appears from the impugned order that detaining authority has taken into consideration crime No. 320/2016 alone alongwith five incamera statements. The petitioner cannot be held to be a 'dangerous person' for a single solitary incident. A person who habitually commits the offence is to be designated as a dangerous person' in view of the provisions of section 2 of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting our attention to paragraph No. 3 of the grounds of detention served upon the petitioner wherein the detaining authority has mentioned numbers of crimes, names of the police stations at which said crimes have been registered, the date and time of the registration of such crimes, date and time of arrest and status in a tabular form and submits that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority appears to have been influenced by the offence which have been set out in the said paragraph No. 3 in the tabular form. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the detaining authority has not set out relevant facts constituting the said offences and as a result the petitioner was prevented from making an effective representation in accordance with clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his contentions placed his reliance on following cases :

1. Khudiram Das v. The State of W