Detention Orders require concrete evidence and proper justification; reliance on vague allegations and pending cases without arrests is insufficient to uphold such orders.

JUDGMENT :

Sarang V. Kotwal, J.

1. Heard Mr. Harshvardhan Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Gavand, learned APP for the State.

2. The Petitioner is a 70 year old person. He has challenged the Detention Order issued by the Respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Kolhapur, under section 3 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 (for short ‘MPDA Act’), dated 23.01.2025, bearing No.Desk-7/Home/Pol/MPDA/SR/01/2025. Apart from the Detention Order, the Detaining Authority passed the Committal Order directing that the Petitioner be detained at Yerwada Central Prison, Pune.

3. The Petitioner was served with the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention are divided in different paragraphs. The Paragraph-3 lists 10 offences and 2 preventive actions taken against the petitioner in the past. Those offences were registered at the instance of Kagal police station, or State Excise Flying Squad, Kolhapur, or Sub-Inspector, State Excise Department, Kagal. All those offences were U/s.65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short ‘said Act’). Those offences were registered between the period 14.04.2021 to 12.06.2023. In all these offences, the cases were pending before the competent courts. Two preventive actions were U/s.110 of the Cr.P.C. and U/s.93 of the said Act. Those actions were taken by Kagal police station in the year 2021 and by the State Excise Department, Kagal, in the year 2023. On both these occasions, a bond was taken from him for a period of one year.

4. The paragraph-4 of the grounds of detention mentions that, in the recent past the petitioner’s involvement was noticed in three offences and in two ‘in-camera’ statements. It was specifically mentioned by the Detaining Authority that, while passing the Detention Order, the Detaining Authority relied upon these three registered offences and the two confidential statements mentioned in paragraph-5(A) and 5(B). The registered offences were as follows:

i) C.R.No.147 of 2024 registered at the instance of Inspector, State Excise Department, Kagal, U/s.65(e) and 98 of the said Act. On that date, on the basis of information the petitioner was seen suspiciously wandering near one house. He was taken into custody and the house was searched. During search, one plastic can of 35 liters of capacity, one plastic bucket and four steel glasses were found in the corner. 25 liters of country liquor was found in that house and, therefore, the offence was registered. However, the petitioner was not arrested; instead, Notice U/s.35(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) was served on him.

ii) C.R.No.162 of 2024 registered at the instance of the Inspector, State Excise Department, Kagal, U/s.65(e) and 98 of the said Act, on 26.08.2024, on similar allegations. 30 Liters of country liquor was found in one house. Again in this case, the petitioner was not arrested. He was given Notice U/s.35(3) of the BNSS.

iii) C.R.No.211 of 2024 registered at the instance of the Inspector, State Excise Department, Kagal, under sections 65(e) and 98 of the said Act, on 25.10.2024. On that occasion, 30 sealed bottles of 180 ml capacity were found in petitioner’s possession. Again in this case, the petitioner was not arrested and he was served with a notice U/s.35(3) of the BNSS.

In C.R.No.211 of 2024, importantly, it is mentioned by the Detaining Authority that the samples taken during the investigation were sent for chemical analysis and the report was awaited.

The C.A. report was available only in the first two offences mentioning that, there was 30.87% and 30.93% v/v of ethyl alcohol was found in those samples. Significantly, no such report was available in the third case when the Detention Order was passed.

5. The ‘in-camera’ statement of the witness ‘A’ was recorded on 03.12.2024. It r