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.

JUDGMENT :

(Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)

Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

2. The petitioner-detenu takes exception to the order dated 18.4.2024 bearing No.DET/MPDA/PCB/ ZONE-IV/18/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur-respondent No.2 preventively detaining him under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (M.P.D.A. Act).

3. A proposal was initiated by Wathoda Police Station, Nagpur on 18.03.2024 to detain the petitioner as the activities of the detenu rendered him a dangerous person. It transpired that he habitually committed serious offences like voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon and intentionally insulting to provoke breach of peace. Following two fresh offences were registered against the detenu:-

(i) Crime No.604/2023 at Wathoda Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and

(ii) Crime No.501/2023 at Nandanvan Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of the I.P.C.

On account of the reign of terror created by the detenu, persons were not coming forward to lodge complaints against the detenu fearing their own safety. Senior Police Inspector, Police Station, Wathoda, Nagpur recorded in-camera statements of two confidential witnesses. The confidential statements revealed that the detenu was engaging in activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

4. Mr. Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the premise that it betrays a clear application of mind. Some of the grounds raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner are as under:-

(a) With respect to Crime No.604/2023 in para No.9.1.2. of the detention order it is stated that when the complainant was going to a grocery store, the petitioner approached him and asked why is he looking at him and started abusing him. The detenu then suddenly took out knife from his pocket and stabbed the complainant on belly and abdomen. However, the complainant has stated in the F.I.R. that the petitioner had assaulted him by wooden-log.

(b) There is a delay of 177 days in passing the detention order and last offence i.e. Crime No.501/2023 registered at Nandanwan Police Station was on 22.10.2023. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in absence of live link between the last offence committed and the date of passing the detention order. It is submitted that bail was granted in both the crimes to the petitioner.

(c) The petitioner has not been supplied with the medical examination report of victim in Crime No.604/2023. Medical examination report is a crucial document to determine whether injuries were inflicted on complainant by means of weapon by the petitioner. Further in Crime No.501/2023 all witnesses except the victim are hearsay witnesses.

5. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. Mr. Badar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondents/ State has contested the contention of the detenu that it was stated in the F.I.R that petitioner had assaulted the complainant by wooden-log. Instead, it was stated that “he took out a knife from his pocket and hit on the right side of navel/bellybutton of abdomen and left the spot.” From a bare reading of the F.I.R. and complaint dated 21.10.2023 at page Nos.95 and 105 respectively of the petition, it is evident that the facts which are narrated in F.I.R. are similar to the grounds of detention stated in para 9.1.2.

It is further submitted by the learned A.P.P. that both the crimes are related to bodily injury which comprised of stabbing by knife and inflicting injuries to the victims. When crowd of on looking persons gathered at the place of incidence, the petitioner brandished knife towards them and threatened them due to which