Detention orders must provide compelling reasons when the detenu is already in custody, and all relevant materials must be considered by the detaining authority.

JUDGMENT :

(Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

2. By way of present petition the petitioner prays to quash and set aside the detention order dated 30.3.2024 passed by respondent No.2 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 “M.P.D.A. Act”).

3. Perusal of the impugned detention order would depict that a reference is made to as many as nine crimes registered against the petitioner. Although specific reference is made to one crime i.e. Crime No.662/2023 in the impugned order reference is also made to one preventive action, two externment proceedings and a previous detention order dated 4.9.2021 which was set aside by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.820/2021.

4. The above-mentioned crime i.e. Crime No.662/2023 punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act was registered on 4.12.2023 at Police Station Khadan. The detenu was arrested on 21.2.2024 in the said offence and the matter is sub judice before the concerned Court. The crime is related to castigation of the complainant, beating his brother to cause injury and attacking the neighbours of the complainant with knives as there were ten to fifteen companions involved in the incident as well. It is pertinent to note that the name of the petitioner is not there in the First Information Report in the said crime.

5. In-camera statement of witness “A” asserts that since the confidential witness runs a hotel, his son was beaten with fist and slaps by the companions of the detenu and the detenu put a knife on the stomach of the witness and threatened to stab him. On the similar line, anonymous witness “B” was stopped by the detenu and his companions while returning from work at around 10:00 P.M. The witness was threatened as he was accused of being an informant of the police by the detenu and thus he put knife on waist of witness to threaten him, he also kicked him on the chest, back, stomach and also threw knife towards the gathered public.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that stale offences have been taken into account having no nexus with the passing of the detention order. It is submitted that as far as crimes mentioned at Sr. No1 to 8 in para No.3 of the detention order are concerned, neither bail applications nor bail orders have been placed before the detaining authority. It is further stated by the learned advocate for the petitioner that it is informed to the detaining authority that petitioner was externed vide order dated 18.2.2019 but the same was quashed and set aside which has not been placed before the detaining authority. It is further submitted that detenu was already in custody in Crime No. 662/2023 and merely because bail application was preferred which was subsequently rejected does not mean that there was a high chance of detenu being released on bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.P.P. opposed the petition and submitted that the detaining authority has gone through the record, seen and signed the in-camera statements after finding them to be truthful and arrived at subjective satisfaction having found reliable material against the detenu. There is application of mind at every level i.e at recording of statement, verification of them and at the stage of passing detention order and thus the impugned order is not vitiated. The record reveals that the detenu has the tendency to repeat illegal activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order warranting his detention. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based