Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
MANGESH S. PATIL, SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
Aniket Balaji Suryawanshi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Section Officer, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1910 of 2023
Decided On : 23-02-2024
Dangerous Person - Challenge to Detention Order - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Sec. 3(1), 3(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the grounds of challenge, considered the relevant judgments, and analyzed the procedural formalities and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The court found that the detaining authority had not committed any perversity or illegality in the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, declaring him a dangerous person based on criminal antecedents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detaining authority had not committed any perversity or illegality in the impugned order.
Issues: The issues included the petitioner's challenge on grounds of non-involvement in the alleged offenses, lack of subjective satisfaction, non-consideration of bail orders, and delay in passing the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detaining authority had applied its mind and arrived at a just conclusion based on subjective satisfaction, and that the subsequent release of the petitioner on bail did not mitigate the seriousness of the offenses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal writ petition and discharged the rule.
JUDGMENT :
Shailesh P. Brahme, J.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides finally with their consent.
2. The petitioner is challenging order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2/District Magistrate, Hingoli detaining him U/Sec. 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred as to the ‘M.P.D.A. Act’ for the sake of brevity and convenience) by declaring him to be a dangerous person. The impugned order received approval of the respondent No. 1 U/Sec. 3(2) of the Act on 02.11.2023. After seeking the opinion of the Advisory Board, impugned order was confirmed on 14.12.2023.
3. Following criminal antecedents are taken into account by the detaining authority to declare him as a dangerous person :
| Sr. No. | Police Station | CR No. & Date | Under Section | Present Status |
| 1. | A. Balapur, Dist. Hingoli | 491/2023 Dt. 12.08.2023 | 395, 323, 506 of I. P. Code, 4, 25 Arms Act | Police Investigation |
| 2. | A. Balapur, Dist. Hingoli | 488/2023 Dt. 11.08.2023 | 395, 397, 341 of I. P. Code, 4, 25 Arms Act | Police Investigation |
| 3. | Vimantal, Dist. Nanded | 469/2023 Dt. 07.08.2023 | 307, 336, 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 I. P. Code & 4, 25 Arms Act & Cri. Low 7 | Police Investigation |
| 4. | Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded | 257/2023 Dt. 26.07.2023 | 307, 336, 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 I. P. Code & 4, 25 Arms Act. | Police Investigation |
Preventive Action
| Sr. No. | Police Station | Chapter Case No. | Section | Present Status |
| 1. | Vimantal Dist. Nanded | 271/2022 Dt. 06.02.2019 | 107 Cr. P. C. | Case closed. |
| 2. | Vajirabad, Dist. Nanded | 45/2022 Dt. 11.09.2022 | 107 Cr. P. C. | Case closed. |
| 3. | Shivaji Nagar, Dist. Nanded | 120/2023 Dt. 23.03.2023 | 107 Cr. P. C. | Case closed. |
Externment Proceedings
| Sr. No. | Police Station | Chapter Case No. | Section | Present Status |
| 1. | Vajirabad, Dist. Nanded | 01/2023 | 44 MPA on Dated 13.04.2023 | Case pending for approval. |
4. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on following grounds, on which his learned advocate made elaborate submissions.
I. Out of the four offences pitted against the petitioner, in three first information reports his name is not appearing. His involvement is doubtful.
II. There is no subjective satisfaction as it is overlooked that there is no document on record identifying the petitioner as the perpetrator in the offences alleged against him.
III. The orders enlarging the petitioner on bail in two offences are not placed on record. After impugned order he was released on bail from last two offences.
IV. There is no cogent material against the petitioner to disclose his activities as detrimental to the public order.
V. In camera statements are doubtful and unreliable.
VI. The finding of the detaining authority that order of detention was passed as the petitioner was likely to be released on bail in last two registered offences is perverse.
VII. There is delay of 44 days from 11.09.2023 till impugned order which is unexplained and fatal.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments :
B. Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4715.
C. Lallan Prasad Chunnilal Yadav Vs. S. Ramamurthi and others reported in 1992 All MR Online 510 (SC).
D. Judgment dated 12.08.2022 in the case Shri Pandurang @ Panda Narayan Garud Vs. The District Magistrate Pune and others in Criminal Writ Petition No. 454 of 2022.
E. Pawan Tukaram Kudale Vs. Commissioner of Police, Pune and others reported in 2018 SCC Online Bom. 1468.
F. Shri Nagesh Laxman Takmoge Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Solapur and others reported in 2018 All MR (Cri) 724.
G. Judg
The detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and consideration of the petitioner's criminal antecedents were crucial in upholding the impugned order.
The detention order can be quashed if there is a delay in taking preventive action, non-consideration of bail, non-communication of grounds of detention, and illegible documents supplied to the detai....
The detention order must record subjective satisfaction on the basis of material placed before it and should not consider extraneous material. The delay in passing the detention order must be properl....
The detention order must be based on sufficient and justifiable evidence to prevent acts prejudicial to public order.
The court emphasized the importance of subjective satisfaction, expert opinion, and the adequacy of regular criminal laws in determining the validity of detention under the MPDA Act.
(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 main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'public order' and the impact of delay in the proposal process on a detention order.
The validity of a detention order can be upheld even when the detainee is in custody, provided the Detaining Authority shows a likelihood of future harmful conduct upon release on bail.
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 subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the relevance of recent criminal activities and in-camera statements were central to the court's decision.
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
