IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act can be justified based on a combination of criminal allegations and in-camera witness statements, emphasizing the importance of public order over individual grievances.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

GAURI GODSE, J. - This petition is filed to challenge the order of detention dtd. 24/2/2023, passed by respondent No.1 - The Commissioner of Police, Pune, in the exercise of power conferred 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 Essential Commodities Act, 1981 ('MPDA Act') for detaining the petitioner.

2. Perusal of the order of detention indicates that the detaining authority has relied upon C.R No. 516 of 2022, dtd. 4/11/2022, registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Secs. 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Secs. 37(1)(3)/135 of Maharashtra Police Act and under Sec. 4(25) of the Arms Act. The allegations against the petitioner in the said CR are that the petitioner had abused and threatened the complainant and tried to assault the complainant by using weapons. In the said CR, the allegation against the petitioner is that when the complainant was returning home, he saw the petitioner with an axe trying to assault a local resident and when the complainant questioned the petitioner as to why he was abusing the local resident, the petitioner threatened him. It is further alleged that on the same day again, the petitioner approached the complainant armed with an axe and started abusing the complainant and tried to assault the complainant and thus the complainant, out of fear started shouting. Hence, the petitioner brandished an axe on the complainant's head which he defended, however, was hurt in the said attack. It is further stated that everyone in the locality tried to prevent the petitioner, however, he threatened everyone by waiving an axe in the air and thus, out of fear, everyone ran away. It is further the case of the complainant that the parents of the complainant, who had come to rescue the complainant also ran away to save their life. The detaining authority has further recorded that during the investigation of the said CR, statements of the witnesses were recorded, spot panchanama, memorandum of panchanama was also made and the petitioner was arrested on 4/11/2022 and was remanded to police custody and further to magistrate custody. The order of detention further indicates that the petitioner was granted bail on 7 th February 2023. Charge-sheet in the said case was submitted on 31 st January 2023 and the same is pending trial.

3. The detaining authority further relies upon two in-camera statements recorded on 10/1/2023 and 14/1/2023, referring to the incidents of 5/10/2022 and 23/10/2022, respectively. The witnesses of the in-camera statement made allegations against the petitioner that he brandished iron koyta on the front glass of his vehicle and broke it and thereafter assaulted the complainant and forcibly extorted money from the complainant. Similar allegations are made by the second witness of the in-camera statement. It is alleged by the witness of the second in-camera statement that the petitioner had assaulted the witness by raising a sword at him and threatened him. Thus, detaining authority by relying on the aforesaid CR as well as the in-camera statements recorded subjective satisfaction that since the petitioner is a dangerous person as defined under the MPDA Act and the petitioner's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The order of detention further records that since the petitioner is released on bail, considering the inclinations reflected in the offences committed by the petitioner, and the incidents recorded in the in-camera statements, his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future, and thus, it is necessary to detain the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds to challenge the order of detention. However, has pressed into service, the grounds raised in clauses (E), (Z) and (BB)