Point of Law : Preventive Detention - Criminal activities by using deadly weapons - Detention order quashed - There is no material which would justify inference that activities indulged in by petitioner were prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

JUDGMENT :

N.J.Jamadar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the counsels for the parties, heard finally.

2. The petitioner who is detained under an order dated 2nd March, 2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Pune under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Person, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) has assailed the legality and correctness of the detention order.

3. The respondent No. 2 invoked the provisions of MPDA Act on the premise that the petitioner was a dangerous person and committing criminal activities by using deadly weapons. The petitioner had created a reign of terror in the jurisdiction of Koregaon Park and Lakshar police stations within the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Police, Pune and Bhigwan police station. The petitioner has allegedly became a perpetual danger to the lives and properties of the people residing and carrying out their daily activities and avocations in the said jurisdiction. It was alleged that the petitioner and his accomplices roamed around armed with deadly weapons and committed grave offences of dacoity, extortion and kidnapping.

4. The proceeding for detention came to be initiated against the petitioner on the basis of predicate offence being C.R. No.441 of 2020 registered with Bhigwan police station. The First Informant in the said crime reported that he had got a tender for work of flling laterite soil (murum) through the petitioner’s source. Certain payments were due. When he demanded the balance payment, the petitioner called him at Bhigwan, under the pretext of settlement, kidnapped and assaulted him by means of iron rod and sticks and gave threats to eliminate him. Thus, the Informant lodged report with Bhigwan police station for the offences punishable under section 364A, 387, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 507 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (the Code) and section 3 read with 25 of Arms Act, 1959 against the petitioner and his accomplices.

5. The detaining authority claimed to have recorded in camera statement of two witnesses as on account of reign of terror created by the petitioner, persons were not willing to come forward due to fear of reprisal. On the basis of aforesaid crime registered against the petitioner and the confidential statements of two witnesses, the detaining authority professed to record a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public order, in future, by invoking the provisions contained in section 3 of the MPDA Act. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention on 2nd March, 2021 itself.

6. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court asserting that the impugned order of detention suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and non-application of mind by the detaining authority. No act is attributed to the petitioner which can be termed to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The narration of the facts pertaining to C.R.No.441 of 2020 and the confidential statements of witnesses, even if taken at par, do not indicate that the acts and conduct attributed to the petitioner would fall within the ambit of public order. On the contrary, the initiation of the proceeding for detention was driven by the fact that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the predicate offence i.e. C.R. No. 441 of 2020. Multifarious grounds which, according to the petitioner, render the impugned order legally unsustainable are raised in the petition.

7. An affidavit in reply is fled on behalf of the respondents in justification of the detention order. The respondents have endeavoured to refute the grounds on which the detention order is assailed.

8. In the light of the aforesai