Point of Law: Confirmed detention order - Subjective satisfaction arrived by Detaining Authority that acts and conduct of petitioner were prejudicial to maintenance of public order cannot be faulted at.

JUDGMENT :

N.J.Jamadar, J.

1. The petitioner, who has been detained under the provisions of section 3(2) 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 (“MPDA Act”), by order dated 29th July, 2020, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nashik (Respondent No. 1), has preferred this petition to quash and set aside the detention order, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under:

a] The petitioner came to be arraigned in C.R.No. 173 of 2020 registered with Adgaon police station, Nashik City for the offences punishable under sections 307, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act for having allegedly attempted to commit murder of Gangadhar Panditrao Aaher, the first informant, and Suresh Ramesh Salunkhe, an injured witness, along with co-accused. The petitioner came to be arrested in the said crime on 4th July, 2020.

b] It transpired that, in the intervening period, the Respondent No. 1 had recorded in camera statements of two witnesses. While the petitioner was still in judicial custody, the Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 29th July, 2020 with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Respondent No. 1 was of the view that the material placed before him indicated that the petitioner was ‘a dangerous person’ within the meaning of section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act. The illegal acts of the petitioner, over a period of time, posed a serious threat and danger to the lives of law abiding and peace loving citizens. The violent and dangerous acts of the petitioner were hazardous and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence, the Respondent No. 1 ordered the detention of the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(2) of the MPDA Act.

c] The impugned retention order was approver by the Government on 30th July, 2020. The Advisory Board opined that there was sufficient cause to detain the petitioner. The petitioner has, thus, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to quash the detention order contending that it suffers from non application of mind and non consideration of vital material and thereby unjustifiably infringes the personal liberty of the petitioner.

3. Though the petitioner has raised multiple grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, yet the petitioner has pressed into service the following grounds, as and by way of the principal challenge, to the impugned order.

(g) The petitioner states and submits that the Sponsoring Authority while forwarding the proposal, did not place before the Detaining Authority the detailed order dated 11th June, 2020 and 18th June, 2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nashik granting bail to other co-accused Akash Rajendra Dhalkane and Suraj Kantilal Verma in C.R.No. 173 of 2020 but forwarded only the operative part. The detailed order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nashik while releasing the other coaccused was a vital piece of evidence and the same ought to have been forwarded to the Detaining Authority and the Detaining Authority ought to have called for it and perused the same. The Detaining Authority ought to have called for these orders in order to satisfy himself of possibility of the detenu being released on bail.

(h) The petitioner states and submits that firstly given the fact that the detenu was in custody for more than a month, and on the date of issuance of the preventive detention order, there was never any possibility of he being enlarged on bail. Secondly, once he was not enlarged on bail but was in custody for more than a month and in relation to a serious crime, then, it is pure guess wo