Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.S. Shinde, M.S. Karnik, JJ.
Ajay Nandkishor Pasi - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Police, Thane - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 480 of 2020
Decided On : 03-09-2020
U.N. Tripathi, Advocate, Jayshree Tripathi, Advocate, J.P. Yagnik, Advocate
The Detaining Authority must satisfactorily explain any delay in executing a detention order, failure to resort to the provisions of the MPDA Act may not vitiate the detention order, and non-supply of certain documents and materials may not necessarily render the detention order illegal.
Headnote:
Detention Order - Dangerous Activities of Slumlords - 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 - Sections 325, 324, 323, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 504, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3, 25 of the Arms Act, Section 37(1), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Sections 469, 500, 34 of IPC read with Section 66 (d) of IT Act 2000 - The court discussed the grounds of detention and the allegations in three crime numbers, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, and the failure of the Sponsoring Authority to apply for cancellation of bail. The court found that the delay in execution of the detention order was satisfactorily explained and the Detaining Authority was serious in executing the detention order. The court also held that the petitioner detenu's rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India were not affected by non-furnishing of translation of certain documents and that the detention order was not vitiated by the non-supply of certain materials.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner detenu challenged the impugned order of detention, which was executed after a delay of more than two months, on the grounds of delay in execution, failure of the Detaining Authority to resort to the provisions of Section 7 of the MPDA Act, and non-supply of certain documents and materials.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in execution of the detention order was satisfactorily explained, the Detaining Authority was serious in executing the detention order, and the petitioner detenu's rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India were not affected by non-furnishing of translation of certain documents. The court also held that the detention order was not vitiated by the non-supply of certain materials.
Issues: The issues included the delay in execution of the detention order, the failure of the Detaining Authority to resort to the provisions of Section 7 of the MPDA Act, and the non-supply of certain documents and materials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in execution of the detention order was satisfactorily explained, the Detaining Authority was serious in executing the detention order, and the petitioner detenu's rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India were not affected by non-furnishing of translation of certain documents. The court also held that the detention order was not vitiated by the non-supply of certain materials.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition.
JUDGMENT
M.S. Karnik, J. - This Petition takes exception to the impugned order of detention dated September 9, 2019 passed by the frst respondent Shri Vivek Phansalkar, the Commissioner of Police, Thane, detaining the petitioner - detenu in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of 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 (Maharashtra Act No.LV of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act' for short).
The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated September 9, 2019, was served to the petitioner detenu on November 11, 2019. The true copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are marked as Exhibit A and Exhibit C in this Writ Petition.
2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Exhibit C) would show that the impugned order is founded on three crime numbers namely C.R.No. I-83/19 under Sections 325, 324, 323, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 504, 427 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for short) registered on June 13, 2019 with Wagle Estate Police Station; C.R.No.I-129/19 under sections 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(II) of the IPC read with Section 3, 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 37(1) , 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 registered on June 23, 2019 with Chitalsar Police Station; and C.R.No. I-73/19 under Sections 469, 500, 34 of IPC read with Section 66 (d) of IT Act 2000 registered on July 19, 2019 with Kopari Police Station.
3. A perusal of the allegations in C.R.No.I-83/2019 would reveal that three unknown persons on the instructions of the petitioner detenu had assaulted the complainant Shri Omkar Sangvekar on June 12, 2019 with kicks and also threw stones and kicked his vehicle. The passersby instead of helping the complainant ran away due to fear. Shopkeepers also closed their shops. One of the assailants sat in Scorpio which was driven by the petitioner detenu. The complainant stated that he knows the petitioner detenu as a habitual criminal.
The second case C.R.No. I-129/2019 relates to a complaint lodged by Shri Saurab Santosh Vartak in respect of an assault made by the petitioner detenu on Prathmesh Palande on June 12, 2019. Thereafter, on June 19, 2019, the petitioner - detenu along with others assaulted the complainant with kicks and blows. In the midnight of June 23, 2019, the petitioner detenu along with 14 to 15 other associates created terror in the area when they came in search of the complainant Saurab. The complainant Saurab had to hide after one of his friend informed him that the petitioner detenu and his 14 to 15 associates were searching for him and issuing threats to kill the complainant.
The third case relates to C.R.No.I-73/2019 lodged by the complainant Shri Prakash Balasaheb Kothavale. It is alleged that the complainant Prakash Kothavale was assaulted on January 3, 2019 by the petitioner detenu and his associates as they were angry with the complainant for lodging a report against the petitioner -detenu. The petitioner detenu and his associates started spoiling the complainant's reputation and defaming him. A photograph of his face with an animal body and another with a female body was pasted in the area. He was addressed as transgender. It is alleged that the petitioner detenu prepared different videos of the complainant, tampered the photographs, wrote defamatory messages on them and uploaded it on Facebook, You Tube, whats app and social media. It is also alleged that the petitioner detenu is responsible for creating social media terror by uploading his own photo with gun and rounds. The petitioner detenu along with one Siddhu Abhange created a group of like minded criminals and named it as 'SA Company' and uploaded it on social media. Further, 'in camera' statement of witness 'A' was recorded on July 5, 2019
