Detention orders must establish a live link between past offences and current threats to public order; mere historical offences are insufficient for detention.

JUDGMENT :

(Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. J. Patil for the petitioner and learned APP Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar 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 18.07.2024 bearing No. Dandapra/KAVI/MPDA/27/28/2024 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the approval order dated 29.07.2024 and the confirmation order dated 11.09.2024 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, four offences were considered i.e. Crime No.41 of 2017 registered with Raver Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 324, 323, 504, 506, 279, 337, 338, 354 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Crime No.250 of 2022 registered with Raver Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Crime No.299 of 2023 registered with Raver Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime No.17 of 2024 registered with Raver Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 333, 143, 147, 148, 149, 114, 427 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the detaining authority had considered all the offences right from 2016 to hold the petitioner as dangerous person, which is against the law. He submits that in respect of last offence which is considered under the caption “Details of offences registered recently within six months”, the detaining authority had taken note of Crime No.17 of 2024. However, it is still under investigation and the petitioner came to be released on bail in that matter. The said aspect of release of petitioner on bail has not been considered properly. There was no subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority before passing the detention order. Further, there is delay in passing the order, which is not explained and, therefore, he relies on the decision in Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar Vs. S. Ramamurthi, [1994 AIR (SC) 656], wherein it has held that unexplained delay in passing the order of detention deserves to be quashed, as the said delay vitiates the order. Similar view was taken in Mr. Shubham Rajendra Hingade Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, [Criminal Writ Petition No.559 of 2021 decided by this Court at Principal Seat on 22.06.2021] and Balu s/o Waman Patole Vs. The Commissioner of Police and others, [Criminal Writ Petition No.155 of 2019 decided by this Court on 26.03.2019].

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 respondent No.2, Mr. Ayush Prasad, the District Magistrate, Jalgaon. He supports the detention order passed by him and tries to demonstrate as to how he had a