Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
Akshay @ Chingya Vishwanath More - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2068 OF 2024
Decided On : 30-01-2025
(A) Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Detention order challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner was detained based on a single offence, with insufficient evidence to justify categorization as a dangerous person. (Paras 3, 9)
(B) Subjective Satisfaction - The detaining authority failed to consider the bail order and the lack of public involvement in the alleged offences, undermining the justification for detention. (Paras 4, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the detention order based on a single offence, arguing that the detaining authority did not consider his bail status or the nature of the incidents, which did not involve public disturbance. (Paras 4, 9)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the detaining authority lacked sufficient material to justify the detention and that the Advisory Board's approval did not rectify this deficiency. (Paras 9)
Issues: Whether the detaining authority arrived at subjective satisfaction and complied with procedural requirements for detention. (Paras 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detaining authority's reliance on insufficient evidence and failure to consider the bail order rendered the detention order invalid. (Paras 9)
Result: The Writ Petition is allowed; the detention order is quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Vibha Kankanwadi, J.
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. R. Shirsat for the petitioner and learned APP Mrs. P.R. Bharaswadkar for the respondents-State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
3. The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 28.08.2024 bearing No.DC/Desk-9C1/989/2024 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the approval order dated 06.09.2024 and the confirmation order dated 23.10.2024, by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the impugned orders and the material which was supplied to the petitioner by the detaining authority after passing of the order. He submits that though several offences were registered against the petitioner, yet for the purpose of passing the impugned order, only one offence is considered i.e. Crime No.101 of 2024 registered with Jamkhed Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 punishable under Section 35 of the Indian Arms Act. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order would show that the detaining authority had considered Crime No.101 of 2024 and in connection with said offence, the petitioner came to be released on bail by order dated 29.07.2024, however, the said order was not considered. That incident even if taken as it is would show that the public was not involved. Similarly, in respect of in-camera witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’, it was the individual act, which was complained of. Further, there is delay in passing the impugned order.
5. Per contra, the learned APP strongly supports the action taken against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a dangerous person as defined under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “MPDA Act”). The detaining authority has relied on the two in-camera statements and the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at. There is no illegality in the procedure adopted while recording the in-camera statements of the witnesses. Due to the terror created by the petitioner, people are not coming forward to lodge report against him and, therefore, it affects the public order. Learned APP relies on the affidavit-in- reply of Mr. Siddharam Salimath, District Magistrate, Ahmednagar to consider as to what were the circumstances on which the subjective satisfaction was arrived at. There is absolutely no delay in passing the order as the proposal which was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police was received by the detaining authority on 14.08.2024 and the impugned order came to be passed on 28.08.2024. The petitioner is involved in serious offences against body and property and, therefore, he has been put in the category of dangerous person as per the M.P.D.A. Act. The activities of the petitioner could not have been curtailed except upon his detention. There is no illegality in the impugned order.
6. Before considering the case, we would like to take note of the legal position as is emerging in the following decisions :-
(i) Nenavath Bujji Vs. State of Telangana and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367
(ii) Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743
(iii) Kanu Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal, 1972 (3) SCC 831 wherein reference was made to the decision in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 1966 (1) SCR 709
(iv) Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Vs. M.M. Mehta, 1995 (3) SCC 237
(v) Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 852
(vi) Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak Vs. R. H. Mendonca and Ors., 2000 (6) SCC 751
(vii) Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (1981) 4 SCC 647
7. Taking into consideration the legal position as summari
Detention orders require strict compliance with procedural safeguards, and insufficient evidence undermines the justification for categorizing an individual as a dangerous person.
Detention orders require strict compliance with legal standards, and reliance on outdated offences without current danger is insufficient for justifying detention.
Detention orders require a clear nexus between past offences and current threats to public order, with strict adherence to legal standards for justifying detention.
Detention orders must be based on verified evidence and proper consideration of a petitioner's rights, failing which they are deemed illegal.
Detention orders must be based on sufficient material demonstrating a disturbance to public order; otherwise, they cannot be sustained.
Illegal detention orders must comply with strict legal standards regarding public order.
Preventive detention is unjustified without substantial evidence demonstrating a public order threat, particularly when ordinary law provides adequate remedies.
Preventive detention lacks justification if ordinary laws suffice to address the alleged misconduct, emphasizing the importance of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence linking the detenu to alleged crimes, and mere allegations do not justify detention unless they threaten public order.
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.
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
