Detention orders require strict compliance with legal standards, and reliance on outdated offences without current danger is insufficient for justifying detention.

JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal holding for learned Advocate Mr. S. T. Mahajan for the petitioner and learnedPublic Prosecutor Mr. A. B. Girase 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 27.09.2024 bearing No.Dandapra/KAVI/M.P.D.A./36/2024 passed by respondent No.1 as well as the approval order dated 08.10.2024 and the confirmation order dated 07.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2, 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, five offences were considered i.e. (i) Crime No.40 of 2016 registered with Amalner Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 353, 337, 117, 114, 188, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, (ii) Crime No.479 of 2022registered with Amalner Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 337, 427, of Indian Penal Code, (iii) Crime No.106 of 2023 registered with Amalner Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 143, 147, 148, 149, 337, 332, 427 of Indian Penal Code, under Section 3(2) of Protection of Public Property from Damages Act, 1884, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Section 135 of Mumbai Police Act, 1951, (iv) Crime No.149 of 2023 registered with Amalner Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 394 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and (v) Crime No.377 of 2024 registered with Amalner Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 326(g), 325, 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the material placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority was not worth taking subjective satisfaction or taking cognizance for passing a detention order. The impugned detention order would show that the detaining authority has considered the offences right from 2016 for concluding that the petitioner is a dangerous person. The offence that has been committed within six months was Crime No.377 of 2024, but even the fact of the said case would show that the petitioner was released on bail by the competent Court. The action was personal in nature and may be due to grave and sudden provocation. As regards the in- camera statements are concerned, they appear to be the copy paste statements and public was not involved in the entire facts.

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. Ayush Prasad, the District Magistrate, Jalgaon/detaining authority. He supports the detention order passed by him and tries to demonstrate as to how he had arrived at the subjective satisfaction. He further states that his order has been approv