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
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 Ad
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Detention orders require strict compliance with legal standards, and reliance on outdated offences without current danger is insufficient for justifying detention.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.
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.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of public order disturbance; failure to meet this standard renders the detention order 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
