The relevance of grounds for detention and the necessity to prevent unexplained delays in passing detention orders.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By the present petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

"(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order direction quashing and setting aside the said order of detention dtd. 12/6/2021 D.O. No. PCB/DP/Zone-IV/2021 and be pleased to direct that the detenu Manoj Tangraj Devendra be set at liberty forthwith."

3. On 12/6/2021, the Commissioner of Police - Respondent No. 2 passed the order of detention under sec. 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short "M.P.D.A. Act") directing the Petitioner to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that for issuing the detention order the detaining authority has considered an incident which occurred on 25/2/2021 and in respect of which a report was registered on 26/2/2021. The Petitioner was taken in judicial custody; that he filed bail application on 2/3/2021 which was granted on 6/3/2021 and he was released on bail on that date. Hence the learned counsel has argued that the impugned order of detention has been passed after an abnormal delay of 4 months from the date of the Petitioner's arrest and almost about 3 months from the date on which he was granted bail reasons for which have in no way been explained in the impugned order.

5. The next ground argued by the Petitioner is that for the purpose of passing the impugned order of detention the detaining authority has relied upon two in-camera statements; one recorded on 19/4/2021 and the second recorded on 22/4/2021. Learned counsel submits that prima facie there is a delay of one and half months in passing the impugned order after the recording of in-camera statements and thus this delay vitiates the impugned order of detention. The in-camera statements are disputed by the Petitioner as being false and fabricated. Learned counsel has further argued that while issuing the detention order, the detaining authority has relied upon 5 CRs registered against the Petitioner which were already relied upon an earlier in point of time for issuing the previous detention order dtd. 12/6/2019; hence there is complete non-application of mind as the 11 CRs mentioned in the present impugned order in fact repeat and rely upon the earlier 5 CRs. Therefore the subjective satisfaction is with complete non-application of mind. It is further argued that the State Government has approved the impugned order of detention on 12/6/2021; that the Petitioner is not aware as to when the detaining authority has sent the report to the State Government for seeking approval and if there has been any delay the same needs to be placed on record. In support of the Petitioner's case the following decisions are referred to and relied upon for the following propositions:

i. T. A. Abdul Rehaman Vs. State of Kerla and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 225

ii. Pradeep Nilkhanth Paturkar Vs. S. Ramanmurthi AIR 1994 SC 656

iii. Austin W.L. Pimto Vs. Commissioner of Police Gr. Mumbai and Ors. 2005 ALL MR (Cri.) 28

iv. Shekhar B. Satam Vs. A.N. Roy and Ors. Cri.W.P.No.1322 of 2006

v. Mohd. Yousuf Rathor Vs. State of J and K and Ors. (1979) 4 SCC 370

vi. Hadibandhu Das Vs. Dist. Magistrate and Ors. AIR 1969 SC 43

vii. Chhangan B. Kahar Vs. N.L. Kalra and Ors. 1989 (2) SCC 318

6. PER CONTRA, learned APP has referred to and relied upon the affidavit dtd. 20/11/2021 filed by the Respondent No.3, affidavit dtd. 20/10/2021 filed by the Sponsoring Authority and affidavit dtd. 18/10/2021 filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1 - State and contended that the impugned order of detention has been correctly passed by following the due process of law. It is submitted that since the Petitioner had committed several offences in the past, the witnesses were not willin