JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides finally, by consent.

2. The petitioner is impugning the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 District Magistrate, Ahmednagar under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates Sand Smugglers and Person Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (herein after MPDA Act), and the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. the Secretary of the Home Department of the State confirming the petitioner’s detention.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner would advert attention to the grounds in the petition on the basis of which the order of detention is being challenged. He submits that the registration of Crime No. I-977/2021 of Pathardi Police Station for the offence Punishable Under Section 328, 420, 465, 468, 470, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 65 (a) to 65(f) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act which has been relied upon by the respondents to pass the impugned order. After filing of the charge sheet and its committal to the Sessions Court it is numbered as Sessions Case No.79/2022. But the respondents failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was granted bail by the Sessions Court on 10.03.2022. He would refer to the decision in the matter of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2012 Cri.L.J. 1334 and Vishal Waman Mhatre Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Ors.; 2013 All MR (Cri) 42. He would submit that in both these matters, failure to take into consideration order of bail was held to vitiate the order of detention.

4. According to the learned advocate there is no proximity in the registration of the aforementioned offence and the order of detention which is considered to be vital in the matter of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite (supra) as also a division bench of this Court in the matter of Sachin Mane Vs. Commissioner of Police; 2022 All. M.R. (Cri) 2566. He would submit that the offence was registered on 21.12.2021 and the order of detention has been passed on 19.05.2022, after about five months.

5. Mr. Kulkarni would then submit that contrary to the decision in the matter of Shivkumar Devendra Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2022 All M.R. (Cri.) 2634, the respondents have taken into consideration the crimes registered against the petitioner to demonstrate his criminal antecedents which were old and stale and in most of which he was either released on bail or acquitted.

6. Mr. Kulkarni would further submit that though a reference is made to the statements of couple of witnesses recorded in-camera, those statements were never verified by the respondent No.3. Even the statements did not give particulars. He ought to have verified whether the apprehension being entertained by these witnesses was the basis for their unwillingness to depose before the Court of law which fact has also been overlooked by the respondent No.1 while confirming the detention. He also pointed out that the statements of these witnesses were recorded a month after the petitioner was granted bail. To buttress his submission he would refer to the decision in the matter of Shri Yash Tekam Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2022 All M.R. (Cri.) 2490.

7. Lastly, Mr. Kulkarni would submit that the spot where the raid was effected and alleged spurious liquor was seized for implicating the petitioner though belongs to him, by a notarized document he and his brother had leased out that property to one Ajinath Avhad who was in exclusive possession of the property. In the absence of any other material demonstrating that the petitioner was indulging in selling spurious liquor, he could not have been ordered to be detained as laid down in the matter of Shri Vinod Subhas Chavan Vs. Himmatrao Deshbhartar and Ors.; 2013 All MR (Cri.) 157.

8. Per contra, the learned APP took us through the papers and by referring to the affidavit-in-