IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
NITIN W. SAMBRE, MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
Sachin Mukund Balkhande – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
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 Sche
Detention orders must provide compelling reasons when the detenu is already in custody, and all relevant materials must be considered by the detaining authority.
Preventive detention requires the detaining authority to base its decision on relevant material and demonstrate subjective satisfaction, which was lacking in this case.
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,....
The validity of a detention order can be upheld even when the detainee is in custody, provided the Detaining Authority shows a likelihood of future harmful conduct upon release on bail.
It is evident from allegations made by witnesses in the in-camera statement that the solitary assault on one individual/individuals can hardly be said to disturb the public peace or bring public orde....
Order of preventive detention cannot be based on incident of solitary assault on one individual.
Preventive detention under the M.P.D.A. Act is justified when the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction is based on credible evidence of serious offences affecting public order.
Detention orders must rely on current and relevant material; reliance on stale offences and absence of crucial reports vitiates the order.
The failure to consider the orders of bail granted to the detenu by the competent Court vitiated the detention order, as it deprived the detaining authority of the opportunity to consider relevant ma....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.