Point of Law: It is evident from allegations made by witnesses in the in-camera statement that the solitary assault on one individual/individuals can hardly be said to disturb the public peace or bring public order in jeopardy so as to bring the case within the purview of the Act providing preventive detention.Certainly not to the public order. As already two proceedings i.e. chapter proceeding and externment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and petitioner executed an interim bond of Rs. 10,000/- in said chapter proceedings for keeping good behaviour and he was externed for six months pursuant to initiation of externment proceedings. Third time initiation of detention proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of same offence, would be travesty of justice and would amount to double jeopardy and article 22 of the Constitution of India would come into picture. On the basis of solitary offence the impugned order of detention cannot be legally sustained. It is evident from allegations made by witnesses in the in-camera statement that the solitary assault on one individual/individuals can hardly be said to disturb the public peace or bring public order in jeopardy so as to bring the case within the purview of the Act providing preventive detention.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is filed with following substantive prayer:-

(b) The order of Detention bearing No. 2021/MPDA/DET-05/CB-79 dated 05.03.2021 issued under Section 3 of M.P.D.A. Act 1981 by the Respondent No. 1 be quashed and set aside and on quashing the same the Petitioner be ordered for release forthwith.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of detention is passed by the detaining authority mechanically in a very casual and cavalier manner, which shows total non application of mind on the part of detaining authority. It is submitted that on same set of allegations and facts three proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Firstly, chapter proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. were initiated on 27.05.2020 and petitioner was asked to execute an interim bond. Accordingly, he executed bond for keeping peace and tranquility. Secondly, externment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was externed on 02.08.2020 for a period of 6 months from Nashik City/district. The said chapter proceedings and externment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of old and stale registered criminal case of the year 2014 and another C.R. No. 133 of 2020 under Section 324, 141, 143, 144, 146 and 149 of IPC and Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act. The externment period of six months was completed on 02.02.2021. Immediately, in the next month i.e. on 05.03.2021 the detaining authority passed the detention order on the basis of same registered case vide C.R. No. 133 of 2020. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no other material whatsoever to consider for passing the detention order. The respondent authorities have taken in all three preventive actions one after another for single solitory offence. The said action taken by the respondent authorities including the detaining authority is not legally permissible and sustainable in law. When the petitioner was asked to execute an interim bond of Rs. 10,000/- for keeping good behaviour and thereafter he has not committed any offence, there was no question of either initiating externment proceedings or passing the detention order.

4. The detention order passed against the petitioner is under Section 3 of the MPDA Act, categorizing him as a dangerous person. If the definition of the dangerous person as defined under Section 2(b-1) of MPDA Act is read in proper perspective, the requirement of said section is that a person who by himself or as a member of gang habitually commits an offence under Chapter XVI or XVII of IPC or any of the offences punishable under Arms Act, 1959, in that case only, such person can be categorized as a dangerous person. In the criminal history of the petitioner shown in the proceedings, there is mention of one criminal case registered in the year 2014 and later on one registered in the year 2020. The two in-camera statements of witnesses are recorded after a gap of six months. If the said statements are minutely perused, it cannot be said that the activity of the petitioner would be covered under the definition of dangerous person.

5. While passing the impugned order the respondent-authority has taken into consideration the old and stale criminal case of 2014 and C.R. No. 133 of 2020. It is submitted that the said C.R. No. 133 of 2020 and the initiation of detention proceedings against the petitioner has no live link and nexus inasmuch as the said C.R. No. 133 of 2020 was registered approximately eight months prior to the passing of detention order. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invites our attention to the various grounds taken in the petition and submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.

6. In support of aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on following judgments:

1. Darpan Kumar Sharma