Point of Law: Criminal activities - Detention order - Both predicate offences, in our view, do not shed light on the activities, which had propensity to cause or calculated to cause harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among general public.

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 has been detained under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (“the MPDA Act”), by the order dated 24th February, 2021, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad, has preferred this petition assailing the legality and validity of the said detention order.

3. The background facts leading to this petition can be stated, in brief, as under:

(a) A proposal was initiated to take action against the petitioner under Section 3 of the MPDA Act at the instance of Wakad Police Station, Pune. It was alleged that the criminal activities of the petitioner had created a reign of terror in the locality where the petitioner ordinarily resided. The petitioner became a perpetual danger to the lives and properties of the people residing and carrying out their daily activities and vocation in the jurisdiction of the Chatushrungi Police Station, Pune City and Wakad Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad Commissionerate. The petitioner and his accomplices roamed around armed with deadly weapons and committed offences of rioting, attempt to murder, murder and criminal trespass etc.

(b) Apart from the offences which were registered against the petitioner during the period 2013 – 2018 and preventive action under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, in the year 2016, the detaining authority took note of two predicate offences. First, CR No.1190/2020 registered with Chatushrungi Police Station against the petitioner and his associates for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”), on 29th August, 2020. Second, CR No.710/2020 registered with Wakad Police station for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 504, 506(II) of the Penal Code and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 3(25) of the Arms Act, 1959 and 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, on 5th October, 2020. The detaining authority noted that on account of the fear of reprisal victims and the witnesses were not willing to come forward and, therefore, statements of two witnesses were recorded in-camera. The confidential witnesses, whose statements were recorded on 15th January, 2020, related the instances which had occurred on 17th December, 2020 and 19th December, 2020, respectively, and which had the propensity to disturb public order.

(c) The detaining authority thus recorded a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of the Act, 1981. The petitioner had unleashed a reign of terror and become a perpetual danger to the society at large. People in the vicinity were experiencing a sense of insecurity. Therefore, it was necessary to detain the petitioner by invoking the provisions contained in Section 3(2) of the Act, 1981 to prevent the petitioner from acting any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, in future. Thus, the detaining authority passed the impugned order and served the grounds of detention on the petitioner on 24th February, 2021. The State Government approved the order of detention passed by respondent no.1, by order dated 3rd March, 2021.

4. The petitioner takes exception to the detention order on multi-fold grounds. First and foremost, the impugned order suffers from vice of patent non-application of mind. No element of the activities attributed to the petitioner being subversive of public order is made out. At best, the activities attributed to the petitioner can be said to be in the realm of law and order. Failure to properly comprehend the distinction between breach of law and order and dis