Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Revati Mohite Dere, Gauri Godse, JJ.
Harshad Jivanrao Mundkar - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 18264 of 2023
Decided On : 22-12-2023
DETAINING AUTHORITY - MAHARASHTRA PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES ACT - Section 3(2), Section 2(b-1), Section 2(a)(iv) - The court discussed the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, particularly focusing on the definitions of 'dangerous person' and the criteria for preventive detention under Section 3. The court interpreted that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority can be based on in-camera statements, which can establish a public order situation. The court emphasized that the detention order is valid if there is a reasonable nexus between the activities of the detenu and the maintenance of public order.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed to challenge a detention order against Tirupati @ Atharva Jivanrao Mundkar, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, under the MPDA Act. The detaining authority relied on a prior criminal complaint and in-camera statements indicating that the detenu was involved in threatening and extorting money from individuals in the community, creating a public order situation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was justified based on the in-camera statements corroborating the detenu's activities that affected public order. The court held that the delay in issuing the detention order was adequately explained and did not invalidate the order.
Issues: Whether the detention order was valid given the alleged delay in its issuance and whether the activities of the detenu constituted a public order situation warranting preventive detention under the MPDA Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority can be based on in-camera statements, and that such statements can demonstrate a public order situation. The court also clarified that the definition of 'dangerous person' under the MPDA Act allows for preventive detention based on a reasonable nexus between the detenu's actions and public order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the detention order as valid and lawful under the provisions of the MPDA Act.
JUDGMENT
Gauri Godse, J. - This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 25th May 2023 passed by respondent no. 2-Commissioner of Police, Thane in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 ('MPDA' Act) for detaining, Tirupati @ Atharva Jivanrao Mundkar. Petitioner is the brother of the detenu.
2. Perusal of the detention order indicates that the detaining authority has relied upon a complaint registered against the detenu vide CR No. 388 of 2022 on 1st December 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the detenu in the said CR is that though there was no dispute between the complainant and the detenu, he threatened and assaulted the complainant and his brother. It is alleged that the complainant saw the detenu fighting with his parents and brother, however though the complainant ignored the same, the detenu abused the complainant in filthy language and assaulted him when the complainant questioned him as to why he was unnecessarily abusing him. It is further alleged that the detenu threatened the complainant with dire consequences, and when the complainant went towards his home, the detenu came there with an iron rod accompanied by his brother. The detenu and his brother assaulted the complainant and the complainant's brother with an iron rod. It is further alleged that the detenu also threatened the people around when tried to help the complainant. Thus, even the people gathered around were scared and ran away to their houses and shut their doors. The detaining authority has referred to and relied upon the medical certificate in the said case. The detenu was transferred from Chitalsar police station in connection with CR No. 280 of 2022 and was taken into custody in the CR No. 388 of 2022 and produced before the magistrate on 6th December 2022. The detenu was released on bail pursuant to an order dated 6th December 2022. The detaining authority has referred to the statements of five witnesses in connection with the said case who have corroborated the facts of the case, and it appears from the detention order that the said case is pending in the court.
3. The detaining authority has relied upon two in-camera statements recorded on 25th April 2023 and 27th April 2023 with reference to the incidents that occurred in the second week of April 2023 and the third week of April 2023, respectively. Witness 'A' has alleged that the detenu and his associates came near the witness and threatened him by holding the knife at the witness's stomach for extortion of money. It is alleged that the detenu threatened the people around not to come in the way to help the witness. It is thus alleged that the detenu by threatening the witness, extorted money from him. Witness 'A' has made allegations that the detenu and his associates carry deadly weapons and roam around in the area, and extort money by threatening the people around. It is alleged that the detenu eats in the hotels but does not pay the bill amounts; hence, the residents of that area, traders and labourers were disturbed and scared of the detenu. The witness has made a specific allegation against the detenu that he and his associates threatened and assaulted the witness by using knife and extorted money from the witness. It is further alleged that he threatened the people around by waving his knife and told them not to come in between the witness and the detenu. Thus, it is alleged that due to fear of the detenu, the people around ran away.
4. Similar allegations are made by witness 'B'. He also stated that the detenu and his associates carry deadly weapons and roam around in the area, and extort money by threatening the people around. It is alleged that the detenu eat
The court affirmed that in-camera statements can be utilized to establish a public order situation for preventive detention under the MPDA Act, and that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining a....
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, emp....
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 orde....
order of detention - Challenged - Once detenu has been informed suffcient particulars of material allegations against him so as to enable him to make an effective representation there is no merit in ....
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.
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 material that constitutes a breach of public order, and the authority must record its subjective satisfaction on the basis of consideration of material before it.
The detention order must be based on sufficient and justifiable evidence to prevent acts prejudicial to public order.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper verification of In-camera statements of witnesses and the communication of such verification to the Detenu to enable hi....
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
