Detention orders require a clear nexus between past offences and current threats to public order, with strict adherence to legal standards for justifying detention.

JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. C. Bhosle for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. A. D. Wange for the respondents – State.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for theparties.

3. The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 05.07.2024 bearing No.DC/Desk-9C1/816/2024 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the approval order dated 12.07.2024 and the confirmation order dated 19.08.2024 passed by respondent No.1, 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, one offence was considered i.e. Crime No.18 of 2024 registered with Sangamner City Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The detaining authority has relied on the aforesaid offence i.e. Crime No.118 of 2024 in which the petitioner was not arrested at all. He was served with notice under Section 41(A)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the offence that has been committed is not serious requiring the arrest of the petitioner, then how that matter can be taken as apiece of evidence for detaining him. Statements of in-camera witnesses would also show that as regards witness ‘A’ is concerned, two incidents allegedly had taken place against him, one on 18.02.2024 at 3.00 p.m. and another at 7.00 p.m. on 23.02.2024. In respect of second incident, he has stated that the present petitioner had stabbed him in stomach and also caused injury to his ear, still he has preferred not to lodge FIR. Whether the detaining authority had considered the medical evidence to confirm the trust in the statement of witness ‘A’ is not reflected. Interestingly, as regards witness ‘B’ is concerned, the first incident is taken place at 10.00 a.m. on 18.02.2024 itself similar to that of witness ‘A’ and another incident is stated to be on 22.02.2024 at 7.30 p.m. Here, he says that on the second occasion, he was shown with a knife. Though both the witnesses are saying that people had gathered at the said place, but they did not come forward to help them. That cannot be taken as an act of disturbing the public order. Perusal of the impugned order would also show that the detaining authority had taken into consideration the earlier offences also when it is stated that the petitioner is involved in the offences of attempt to commit dacoity, house breaking, causing hurt by dangerous weapons withunlawful assembly, commit robbery with unlawful assembly, attempt to murder with dangerous weapons. Thus, when the past incidents were also considered, then it can be certainly said that there was no nexus or live link between those incidents and the impugned order. It appears that around 25.06.2023 proceedings under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act for externment was undertaken, but it was dropped by the Deporting Authority or the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar. It appears that the cause behind dropping that proceeding has not been properly considered and, therefore, the material which was before the detaining authority was not sufficient to arrive at the subjective satisfaction for 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