Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
NITIN W. SAMBRE, MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
Imran Khan Rahim Khan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.569/2024
Decided On : 13-02-2025
(A) Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Person Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 - Section 3(1) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Detention order challenged - The court found that the detention order lacked sufficient material to justify the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention. (Paras 2, 9, 12)
(B) Preventive Detention - Subjective Satisfaction - The court emphasized that the detaining authority must consider only relevant material and apply its mind to pertinent facts, ensuring that the decision-making process is not influenced by irrelevant considerations. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a detention order based on two criminal cases, arguing that the order was unjustified as it did not consider relevant facts, including a counter F.I.R. and the absence of recent crimes.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the detention order was not supported by adequate material and quashed it, ordering the petitioner’s release.
Issues: The main issues included whether the detaining authority had sufficient grounds for detention and whether the subjective satisfaction was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detaining authority failed to consider relevant circumstances and that the detention order was not justified based on the material presented.
Result: The impugned order is quashed and set aside; the petitioner is to be set at liberty forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
(Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the correctness and validity of the detention order dated 14.3.2024 passed by respondent No.2/the District Collector, Akola detaining the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Person Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short “MPDA Act”) and confirmation order dated 08.5.2024 passed by respondent No.1. In pursuance of the said order, the detenu was committed from Central Jail, Akola to Central Jail, Nandurbar, Distt. Nandurbar on the very same day.
3. The alleged activities of the detenu are set out in the grounds of detention order. Respondent No.3 submitted the proposal to the District Collector on 9.3.2024 in pursuance of the detention of petitioner. Representation was filed by detenu before the Advisory Board on 18.4.2024. Four criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner out of which two offences are relied upon for passing the detention order:-
(i) Crime No.410/2023 registered on 7.11.2023 at Police Station Old City, Akola punishable under Sections 326, 324, 427, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Crime No.446/2023 registered on 25.11.2023 at Police Station Old City, Akola punishable under Sections 392 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The grounds as raised in the petition by the petitioner are as under:-
(a) The proposal mainly refers to two cases in which the petitioner was falsely implicated. The second offence i.e. Crime No.446/2023 relates to a property dispute and registration of this crime is a counterblast and there was a counter F.I.R to this effect. The said crime is narrated in para 4.2 of the grounds of detention which states that the detenu punched the glass of an autorickshaw of the complainant and sustained no injuries, as can be seen in the blank column No.7 of arrest form of this crime.
(b) The last order of bail is dated 30.11.2024 and the detention order is passed on 14.03.2024 and thereafter no crime is registered against the detenu, therefore, he has not flouted any bail orders. However, it is to be noted that from the perusal of the crime chart it can be seen that the petitioner was externed from the city limits of Akola for a period of six months on 08.12.2023 under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. Mr. Ali. learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the in-camera statements of witnesses “A” and “B” were recorded on 1st and 3rd of March, 2024 respectively and verified by the S.D.P.O Akola but if attachment to the proposal is seen there is only a reference of “Index”. It does not show that what were the contents of index and whether there are any sealed envelopes of the witnesses of whom statements were recorded. Further it is argued by learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was out on bail in the above narrated offences of which reference was taken in the impugned order. It is further argued by learned Advocate for the petitioner that insofar as the offence i.e. Crime 446/2023 is concerned, the F.I.R was neither read nor the papers in pursuance to said crime were seen.
6. Mr. Badar, learned A.P.P, however, strenuously relied on the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that after the detaining authority being subjectively satisfied about the correctness, genuineness and authenticity of the confidential statements, put the endorsement as “seen” on the statements. He further submitted that the detaining authority has gone through the record and thereafter considered the recent crimes within six months and correctly observed that the crimes committed by the petitioner are sufficient to pass the detention o
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 must provide compelling reasons when the detenu is already in custody, and all relevant materials must be considered by the detaining authority.
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,....
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.
Detention orders require strict compliance with legal standards, and reliance on outdated offences without current danger is insufficient for justifying detention.
Illegal detention orders must comply with strict legal standards regarding public order.
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 be based on relevant evidence and objective criteria; absence of chemical analysis reports and reliance on vague witness statements render such orders unsustainable.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence linking the detenu to alleged crimes, and mere allegations do not justify detention unless they threaten public order.
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
