Preventive detention requires credible evidence linking the detainee's actions to public order threats; absence of such evidence invalidates the detention order.

JUDGMENT :

Vrushali V. Joshi, J.

1) Heard.

2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Criminal Writ Petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3) The petitioner came to be detained vide order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Amravati, in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) 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, (‘MPDA Act’ for short), thereby holding that the activities of the petitioner are that of a ‘bootlegger’, and Respondent no.1 confirmed the order of detention and directed to continue the same for a period of twelve months from the date of detention vide order dated 07.06.2024.

4) The proposal for detention by Respondent no.3 was issued to the Office of the District Magistrate, vide letter dated 23.03.2024. It is stated in the proposal that, eight offences were registered against the petitioner from the year 2022 to 01.01.2024, out of which two crimes, i.e., C.R. no. 389/2023 and C.R. no. 01/2024 have been taken into consideration for passing the order of detention.

5) Both of the offences are registered under Section 65(d) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 at the Police Station, Bramhanwada Thadi, Amravati rural, Dist- Amravati.

6) In the first Crime, i.e., C.R. no. 389/2023, seventeen litres of illicit handmade Gavathi liquor worth Rs. 1700/- was seized on 12.10.2023 in which the Chemical Analyzer’s Report is available, showing the sample containing 13.10% v/v Ethyl alcohol.

7) In another Crime, i.e., C.R. no. 01/2024, a total of fourteen litres of liquor worth Rs. 1400/- was seized on 31.12.2024. In this crime, the C.A. report is still awaited from the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Amravati.

8) In both the offences, the petitioner is released on notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the matters are pending before the concerned Court.

9) Statement of anonymous witness “B” would reveal that, in the second week of February 2024, when some people were drinking and arguing near the house of detenu, he came out with a knife and abused the crowd out loud and drove people away from there. When the witness interrupted and asked to stop the business of selling liquor as people drink alcohol and argue and abuse in the area, the detenu pointed a knife at the witness and threatened to end his life if he reported the detenu to the police.

10) Grounds raised by the petitioner are as under:

(a) That the last criminal activity had taken place on 01.01.2024 and the detention order was passed on 12.04.2024, i.e., after a period of about hundred days from the date of last offence and therefore, there is no live link between the alleged crime and the impugned order of detention passed.

(b) That though the statements of confidential witnesses “A” and “B” were shown to be verified by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Achalpur Division on 26.03.2024, the proposal of detention was issued on 23.03.2024, which was three days before the verification of witness statements.

11) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Rai, submitted that there are no offences registered under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. He stated that, there is no single report which would show that any person has died in the vicinity of Bramhanwada Thadi, Tah- Chandur Bajar, Dist- Amravati, and there are other shops in the said Tahsil where the liquor is readily available which has more than forty to forty three percent of alcohol.

12) The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, merely on the basis of two crimes and two in-camera statements, the detaining authority reached to the conclusion that, petitioner is a habitual bootlegger.

13) Per Contra, learned A.P.P., Adv. Damle, vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

14) Learned A.P.P. subm