The delay in executing a detention order must be reasonably explained, failure to apply for cancellation of bail does not vitiate the order, and non-supply of certain documents does not render the order illegal.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Karnik, J.

1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned order of detention dated September 9, 2019 passed by the first 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 rec