Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Revati Mohite Dere, V.G.Bisht, JJ.
Ram Raju – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Police Pune – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 6382 of 2021
Decided On : 17-06-2022
M.P.D.A. - Detention Order - Sec. 3(2) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981 - Sec. 308, 143, 332, 268, 269, 270, 188, 158, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sec. 37(1)(3) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, Sec. 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Sec. 51(B) of Disaster Management Act, Sec. 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Sec. 11 of Maharashtra Covid Rules 2020 - The judgment discussed the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 and the various sections of the Indian Penal Code and other related acts in the context of the detention order. The court also referred to the case law to interpret the concept of 'public order' and 'law and order' under the M.P.D.A. Act.
Fact of the Case:
The detenue was detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 based on two criminal cases related to contravention of lockdown guidelines and in-camera statements of witnesses. The petitioner challenged the detention order on the grounds that he was wrongfully detained for petty offenses and that there was no material to brand him as a dangerous person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was unjustified as the acts attributed to the detenue could have been addressed through ordinary laws. The court also noted that the in-camera statements of witnesses were insufficient to term the detenue as a dangerous person. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed, and the detention order was quashed and set aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 was justified based on the detenue's alleged activities and in-camera statements of witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detenue's acts did not warrant detention under the M.P.D.A. Act and could have been addressed through ordinary laws. The in-camera statements of witnesses were deemed insufficient to justify the detention.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the detention order was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
JUDGMENT
V.G.BISHT, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Pune City, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981, (M.P.D.A. Act for short) read with Government order, Home Department (Special) No.MPDANo.0612/CR-151/Spl-3B dtd. 30/6/2021 has ordered the detention of Ram Raju alias Jatalya Umap, resident of Sr.No.54/2 Aannabhau Sathe Vasahat, Aranneshwar Pune (hereinafter referred to as the detenue) vide order No.PCB/DET/2357/2021 dtd. 3/11/2021.
3. Pursuant to this order, the State Government vide order dtd. 6/11/2021 approved the detention and directed the detenue to be detained on the basis of record submitted by the Advisory Board constituted under M.P.D.A. Act. The detention order dtd. 3/11/2021 is impugned in the present petition.
4. Facts, leading to the present petition, in brief, are as under :
(a) The first and second incident took place on 15/5/2021 wherein it is alleged that the petitioner and 150-200 unknown persons took out a huge rally/procession on account of death of accused, namely, Madhav Hanumant Waghate in contravention of lockdown guidelines issued by the State Government during COVID-19. Accordingly, Sahakar Nagar Police Station and Bharti Vidhyapeeth Police Station registered two different CRs viz., C.R.No.126 of 2021 and 419 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sec. 308, 143, 332, 268, 269, 270, 188, 158, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code (IPC), under Sec. 37(1)(3) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, under Sec. 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, under Sec. 51(B) of Disaster Management Act, under Sec. 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and under Sec. 11 of Maharashtra Covid Rules 2020.
5. Perused the reply affidavits of Commissioner of Police, Pune, Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Superintendent, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.
6. The validity of the impugned order has been challenged on various grounds enumerated in the petition but following main grounds have been pressed into service by the detenue :
"P. The Petitioner states that, he is not a person whose presence in the society would be dangerous to the respectable members of the society."
"Q. The activities of the petitioner cannot be held to be capable of disturbing public peace when there is no sufficient material to show that the Petitioner is a dangerous person in accordance with the provisions of the said Act."
7. Mr.Ashraf Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted before us that C.R.No.126 of 2021 registered by Sahakar Nagar Police Station and C.R.No. 419 of 2021 by Bharti Vidhyapeeth Police Station arise out of the same incident and in both the said CRs, detenue has been released on bail. The learned counsel then invited our attention to grounds (P) and (Q) referred hereinabove and vehemently submitted that the detenue has been wrongfully detained for the petty offences in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel, even statements of confidential witnesses recorded during investigation are baseless and have been only relied on in order to strengthen the case of the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel then lastly submitted that there is no material on record to show that the presence of the petitioner is not in the interest of the society and he is a dangerous person as per the provisions of M.P.D.A. Act. Thus, for all these reasons, writ petition deserves to be allowed. Mr.Ashraf Shaikh placed reliance in Bharat Kisan Mekale vs. The Commissioner of Police, Solapur and Others,2021 ALL MR(Cri) 3783. and Shubham Rajendra Hingade vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,2021 ALL MR(Cri) 4092.
8. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, lear
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 should be based on activities that affect 'public order' and ....
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of public order disturbance; failure to meet this standard renders the detention order illegal.
Preventive detention orders must be based on sufficient material demonstrating a threat to public order, and arbitrary or capricious exercise of power renders such orders illegal.
(1) Preventive detention – It is not open to detaining authority to simply refer to stale incidents and hold them as basis of order of detention.(2) Preventive detention – Disorderly behaviour of a p....
The judgment establishes the importance of a clear nexus between alleged activities and disturbance of public order to justify preventive detention under the MPD Act, emphasizing the need for subject....
The detention order must be based on sufficient and justifiable evidence to prevent acts prejudicial to public order.
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 feel....
The distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' is critical in determining the legality of preventive detention, focusing on the potential societal impact of an individual's actions.
Detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act must include a thorough assessment of the detainee's criminal history and the public order implications of their actions,....
Unexplained 133-day delay from last prejudicial act snaps live link, vitiating preventive detention order. Solitary individualistic offence affects law and order, not public order justifying detentio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
