Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S. Gadkari, Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.
Gopal Suresh Malik - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 66 of 2024
Decided On : 16-04-2024
DETERMINATION - DETENTION UNDER MPDA ACT - Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act, Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, Sections 387, 427, 504, 506(2) of IPC, Sections 37(1), 135, 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act - The court discussed the provisions of the MPDA Act, particularly Section 3(2) which allows for preventive detention of individuals deemed dangerous to public order. The court emphasized the interpretation of 'public order' versus 'law and order', referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Pesala Nookaraju, which highlights the importance of the potential impact of an individual's actions on public order. The court concluded that the petitioner's actions, which instilled fear in the community and disrupted public peace, justified the detention order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a detention order issued under the MPDA Act, arguing that the criminal activities he was accused of only affected individuals and did not constitute a threat to public order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions, including extortion and threats, had a broader impact on the community, creating a climate of fear that justified the detention under the MPDA Act.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's actions constituted a threat to public order justifying preventive detention under the MPDA Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the determination of public order is based on the potential impact of an individual's actions on the community, not merely the intrinsic nature of the acts themselves.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the detention order as lawful under the MPDA Act.
JUDGMENT
Shyam C. Chandak, J. - By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner has questioned the legality of the Order dated 24th August 2023, passed under Section 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 of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short 'the MPDA Act'), issued by the Respondent No.2-The Commissioner of Police, Thane thereby directing detention of the Petitioner. By the even dated Committal Order issued by the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner has been detained in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik.
2. Heard Mr. Amit Karva, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Yagnik, learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the Petition and the Affidavits-in-reply dated 09th February 2024, 24th January 2024 and 18th February 2024, filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively.
3. Even though the Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order on various grounds, as specifically raised in para 6 of the Petition, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner restricted his submissions to ground 'F' therein. In view of said ground, the learned Advocate submitted that, the relevant C.R.No.344/2023 registered against the Petitioner, as detailed hereinafter, would at the most amount to prejudicial to law and order problem and not public order, because the said offence is against an individual and not affecting the society. As a result, the Detention Order is illegal and liable to be quashed on this count alone.
3.1. To buttress his submissions, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pesala Nookaraju v/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1003, wherein in paragraph 65, it is held that :-
4. As against this, Mr. Yagnik, learned APP vehemently submitted that, from the said C.R.No.344/2023 and the in-camera statements, it is evident that, the criminal activities of the Petitioner not only affects the individuals but it has also affected the public at large in the concerned locality, because the said activities are committed by the Petitioner along with his associates and it created terror in the mind of the small vendors/ businessmen of said locality due to threats of 'hafta' i.e. demand of money. As a result, the victims do not come forward to file a complaint with police. Therefore, the Detention Order was very essential.
5. Record indicates that, in the past the Petitioner had committed three crimes, registered with Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar. To control the Petitioner's criminal activities as a preventive measure, the Senior Inspector of Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar, District Thane had also initiated Chapter proceedings under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. The Petitioner was externed from Thane District for a period of 02 years vide Externment proposal No.5/22 under Sections 56(1)(a)(b) of The Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 dated 29th January, 2022. During this period, the Petitioner committed one serious crime. Hence, this Order was cancelled on
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.
(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 that the detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 should be based on activities that affect 'public order' and ....
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.
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.
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....
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,....
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
