JUDGMENT :

Bharat P. Deshpande, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner/detenu is hereby challenging impugned order dated 29.08.2022, passed by respondent No.2 under 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 (for short ‘MPD Act’), thereby detaining a detenu as a dangerous person.

3. In nutshell, the contentions raised in the petition is that, the detenu was detained without application of mind, without subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and there being no disturbance of public peace or disturbance of public order. In-camera statements are false statements which are not properly considered by the Detaining Authority and thereby violated rights of the detenu as a free person.

4. Mr. M.N. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned orders are clearly violative of the principles laid down in various decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court in connection with the procedure to be adopted by the Detaining Authority and recording of subjective satisfaction. He would submit that relevant material was not considered by the Detaining Authority including bail granted to the detenu in some of the offences, similarly, the detenu was served with the notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in some of the matters, which clearly shows that even the police authorities did not require custody of the detenu in connection with such offences. He would further submit that statements recorded in-camera of two witnesses are stereotype and not giving any specific particulars. Similarly, Detaining Authority on the day of passing of the detention order itself, put its endorsement “seen”, on the statements which show non-application of mind. He would submit that the Detaining Authority failed to verify the correctness or genuineness of the contentions found recorded in such statements of the witnesses, so as to arrive at subjective satisfaction. He would, therefore, submit that the detention order based on two in-camera statements without verification of it by the Detaining Authority vitiate such order.

5. He would then submit that the offences alleged against the detenu are offences against individuals and there is no material to show that the detenu was creating fear in the mind of public or such offences would constitute breach of public order. Finally, he claimed that there is no live link or nexus between the alleged offences referred in the grounds of detention with that of the order itself.

6. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the following decisions:

7. In cases of Bharat Kisan Mekale Vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors., 2021 DGLS (Bom.) 1243, Gokul Sahabrao Sabale Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Pune and Ors., 2017 ALL MR (Cri.) 2051, Vasudev Mahadev Surve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. in Criminal Writ Petition No.592/2021, decided on 16.12.2021, Hanif Karim Laluwale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., in Criminal Writ Petition No.75/2022, decided on 28.06.2022, Chattu S/o Ramjan Naurangabadi Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.78/2022, decided on 11.07.2022, Sanjay S/o Ramlal Shahu Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., in Criminal Writ Petition No.768/2015 decided on 01.02.2016, Pratap S/o Ajay Kharare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., in Criminal Writ Petition No.531/2021 decided on 28.10.2021.

8. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Singla Vs. Union of India and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.10798/2022 decided on 10.04.2023.

9. Mr. Rode, learned APP for respondents, while supporting the impugned orders would submit that the Detaining Authority consid