Preventive detention lacks justification if ordinary laws suffice to address the alleged misconduct, emphasizing the importance of subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority.

JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rupesh A. Jaiswal for the petitioner and learned APP Mrs. R. P. Gour 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 09.04.2025 bearing No.2025/CB/MPDA/DET-01/CR-28 passed by respondent No.1 as well as the approval order dated 16.04.2025 and the confirmation order dated 22.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2, 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, two offences were considered i.e. Crime No.553 of 2024 registered with Satara Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 351(3), 238 of Bhariya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Section 4 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Crime No.559 of 2024 registered with Satara Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 121(1), 352, 351(2)(3), 238 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Section 4 punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that two offences i.e. Crime No.553 of 2024 and Crime No.559 of 2024 registered with Satara Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and two in-camera statements have been considered for passing the detention order. Perusal of those FIRs would show that those were under the respective provisions of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act. In both the matters, the petitioner has been released on bail. In Crime No.559 of 2024, he was released on 19.03.2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Aurangabad. The conditions have been imposed and, therefore, it ought to have been seen by the detaining authority that the ordinary law would have been suffice to curtail the alleged criminal activities of the petitioner. The detaining authority has considered that the two writ petitions which were filed by the present petitioner came to be allowed and the earlier detention orders passed by the then detaining authorities have been quashed and set aside, yet the impugned order has been passed which appears to be to please the sponsoring authority. Perusal of the in-camera statements of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ would show that the facts mentioned therein would have at the most created law and order situation and not the public order.

5. Per contra, the learned APP strongly supports the action taken against the petitioner. She 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 filed by Mr. Pravin Pawar, Commissioner of Police, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar / detaining authority, who in his affidavit, has stated a