IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a detention order can be upheld despite delays if the detaining authority provides satisfactory explanations and demonstrates a live link between the incidents and the order.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

GAURI GODSE, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is filed to challenge the detention Order bearing no. 03/PCB/DP/ZONE-VI/2022 passed on 22/8/2022 by Respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Mumbai in the exercise of the powers under Sub-Sec. 2 of Sec. 3 of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981.

3. Perusal of the said order of detention shows that a list of complaints registered against the Petitioner and the preventive actions taken against the Petitioner are referred to in the order of detention. The order of detention further records that the facts stated in paragraph 8 are relied upon for passing the order of detention. In paragraph 8 of the detention order, Criminal Case being C.R. No. 156 of 2022 dtd. 22/3/2022, registered against the Petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 386, 392, 323, 504 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 37 (1)(a), 135 and 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act is relied upon by the detaining authority. The detention order further reproduces the gist of the in-camera statements of two witnesses recorded on 9/7/2022 and 15/7/2022.

4. The detaining authority has thus relied upon the aforesaid Criminal Case registered against the Petitioner as well as the inCamera statements for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and, thus, found it necessary to detain the Petitioner. The detaining authority has further also considered that the Petitioner is released on bail on 11/4/2022 in connection with C.R. No. 156 of 2022. However, the detaining authority, by referring to the offences committed by the Petitioner and the allegations in the in-camera statements of the two witnesses, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that Petitioner is likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order in future. Hence, an order of detention is passed for detaining the Petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has raised various grounds for challenging the order of detention; however, has pressed into service ground raised in clause 'D' of paragraph 5 of the petition, which reads as under:

"That there is inordinate delay in proposal for detention and passing of order of detention. The honourable Bombay high court observed in judgement 2014 ALL MR (CRI) 2409 that Delay of about one month and 20 days in passing of order on omnibus ground of time being required for effecting translation can not be accepted, order would be vitiated on ground of delay in present case proposal for detention was made on 23/3/2022 and detention order is passed on dtd. 22/08/2022 hence present detention order is also vitiated on the ground of delay."

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is a delay in recording the in-camera statements after the last complaint registered against the Petitioner. He submitted that complaint was registered against the Petitioner on 22/3/2022, and the Petitioner was released on bail on 11/4/2022. The learned counsel further submitted that the in-camera statements of two witnesses are recorded on 9/7/2022 and 15/7/2022. The incamera statements referred to the incidents of last week and second week of June 2022. The order of detention is passed on 22/8/2022. The learned counsel thus submitted that the delay in recording the in-camera statements after five months from the last complaint registered against the Petitioner shows that the order of detention is passed on omnibus grounds and that the order is vitiated on the ground of delay and hence, the order of detention be quashed and set aside, and the Petitioner be released forthwith.

7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decisions of