Detention orders must be based on current, relevant evidence; reliance on quashed prior orders constitutes legal error.

JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. D. Sapkal instructed by Mr. V. V. Udhan for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. V. K. Kotecha 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 10.07.2024 bearing Outward No.2024/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA/Kavi passed by respondent No.2 as well as the approval order dated 18.07.2024 and the confirmation order dated 30.08.2024 passed by respondent No.1, by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned Senior Counsel 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, three offences were considered i.e. Crime No.44 of 2024 registered with Badnapur Police Station, District Jalna for the offences punishable under Sections 294 , 506, 507 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , Crime No.43 of 2024 registered with Mukundwadi Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 294 , 504, 506, 507 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and Crime No.105 of 2024 registered with Chandanzira Police Station, District Jalna for the offences punishable under Sections 354 , 452, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it appears from the perusal of the detention order that all the seven offences were considered by the detaining authority to hold the petitioner as a dangerous person, which is against the law in view of the fact that the first offence is stated to have been committed on 02.09.2018 and there was no live link till the date of the detention order. The most glaring part is that the detaining authority had considered the externment order bearing No.2020/MAG/CR-03 dated 15.12.2022 whereby the petitioner was externed out of Jalna District for two years under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the MAHARASHTRA POLICE ACT , 1951. The detaining authority failed to consider that the said matter had gone up to Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 28.01.2022 in Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, [Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.9032 of 2021] observed that there is involvement of local MLA Narayan Kuche in lodging the offences against the petitioner and then the said order of externment as well as judgment of this Court dated 20.08.2021 was quashed and set aside. The detaining authority had not considered the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the detaining authority has also not considered that the anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner in Crime No.105 of 2024 by learned Sessions Judge, Jalna on 26.03.2024. The observations in the said bail application that there is no offence made out against the applicant has not been considered. There was no question of disturbance to the public order and all these facts have not been considered by the Advisory Board and, therefore, approval and confirmation of the same deserves to be set aside.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relies on the following decisions :-

(i) Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Tamilnadu and Ors. , [AIR ONLINE 2023 SC 706];

(ii) Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana , [ AIR ONLINE