The court established that the absence of a specified period of detention in the order does not invalidate the detention, provided that the confirmation order meets the statutory requirements and the detaining authority's satisfaction is based on reasonable grounds.

JUDGMENT

SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J. - Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. This petition questions the legality or otherwise of preventive detention of the petitioner made under detention order dtd. 29/8/2022 and confirmation order dtd. 8/9/2022, both passed under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short, "the MPDA Act").

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner terms the impugned orders as illegal on various grounds, but learned APP has a different opinion, and he supports them.

5. On going through the grounds of detention and confirmation order, we find that learned APP is right in his opinion as there is hardly anything in the impugned orders, which could be said to be not having any proximate nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the order of preventive detention and the confirmation order passed against the petitioner.

6. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds of bail were not considered by the Detaining Authority and it resulted in rendering the order of preventive detention invalid but, we find that reality is something different. There have been three crimes, which have been considered by the Detaining Authority and in each of these crimes, the petitioner has been granted bail by the concerned Courts. The detaining order specifically refers to the bail orders and the concerned Officer has stated that he has gone through the details of the bail orders. Once, reference to the bail orders is made in these words, it cannot be said that the concerned Officer has not considered the grounds of bail. On the contrary, inspite of noticing the fact that in each of these three crimes bail has been granted to the petitioner, the Authority has reached the satisfaction about the need for preventing the petitioner from continuing with his criminal activities, which were considered by the Authority as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The statements of confidential witnesses also provide sufficient material to the Authority to reach its subjective satisfaction in the present case. They have stated that due to fear of the petitioner, the members of public are not coming forward to give evidence. When these statements are considered along with the conditions imposed in the bail orders, the only conclusion that can be made is that even after having involved himself in three different crimes, the petitioner's criminal activities continued and that he had brazenly committed breach of conditions of the bail orders.

7. The bail order passed in Crime No. 153/2022 contain an important observation of the learned Magistrate. It is to the effect that there was possibility that the petitioner might indulge in some kind of offences and therefore, learned Magistrate declined the request of the petitioner for his release only on cash security. The bail order passed on 8/4/2022 in Crime No. 48/2022 puts a condition that the petitioner shall not commit any similar offence but, the petitioner continued with his criminal activities. The confidential witness has stated that the petitioner not only extracted an amount of 400/-Rs. 400/- from him but also threatened the members of public who had gathered on the spot of the incident with dire consequences if any of them went to the Police for lodging report against him. The statement of another witness shows that the petitioner had also extracted an amount of 600/- from him and had given similar threat to public which hadRs. 400/- gathered at the spot of the incident.

8. The material referred to above in our view, is relevant and has been considered by the Detaining Authority for reaching its subjective satisfaction regarding the need for preventively detaining the petitioner and, therefore, we see no flaw in the