Detention for public order under the MPDA Act requires a direct impact on public order; mere threats do not suffice to justify detention.

JUDGMENT :

(Per: Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)

1) Heard.

2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Criminal Writ Petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3) The petitioner being aggrieved by the detention order dated 17.10.2024 passed by Respondent no. 2 under Section 3(1) 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 (hereinafter referred to as the “MPDA Act”) has filed the present writ petition.

4) The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned order which appears to have been confirmed by the State Government on 17/12/2024, which was passed by the respondent No.2 on 17/10/2024. The petitioner herein is the brother of the detenu. The order is challenged on the ground that, there is delay in passing the detention order. It is submitted by the petitioner that the last crime was committed on 16/05/2024 and the order was passed on 17/10/2024. There is no live-link. The other grounds are also mentioned by the petitioner, however the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the reliance on the ground of delay only.

5) Three offences along with two statements are considered for passing of the detention order. Crime No. 181 of 2024 is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code, r/w Sections 4,25 Arms Act, r/w Section 135 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The complainant has lodged the complaint against the detenu. It is alleged that the detenu along with his friends gave threats to the grandfather of the complainant and used abusive language and on a complaint lodged by the complainant, the crime is registered. It is also alleged that all the persons were having knife and sword in hands and they gave threats to the people who gathered in the said area. The detenu was arrested in the said crime and was released on bail.

6) In another offence i.e Crime No.130 of 2024, for the offence punishable under Section 294 and 506(b) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 24 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act is registered. In this crime also, when the complainant lady was at home, the detenu along with his friends went to the house of complainant with knives and wooden sticks. They gave threats and used abusive language. Therefore, she has lodged the complaint and the crime is registered. The detenu was arrested and was released on bail.

7) Crime No.184 of 2024 is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, r/w Section 135 of the Prohibition Act. The information was received that the detenu is standing with deadly weapon in front of his house, therefore, the raid was conducted. Black knife was found at the waist of the detenu, he along with his brother were standing in front of the house. Brother of detenu, was also carrying a sharp weapon like china knife. Both the knives were recovered after panchanama from the detenu and his brother, thereafter, the notice was issued.

8) Two statements were considered for the offences about extortion of money by the detenu. In both the statements, the witnesses have stated that the detenu has extorted money by giving threats on public road. Considering both the statements and the criminal history of the detenu about crimes, which were registered during the period of six months, the detention order was passed.

9) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of Shivkumar Madeshwaran Devendra Vs. State