Detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act must include a thorough assessment of the detainee's criminal history and the public order implications of their actions, with procedural adherence critical to validity.

JUDGMENT :

Vrushali V. Joshi, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the detention order passed under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order which appears to have been confirmed by the Government by order dated 11.10.2023 on the ground that the impugned order passed by the Detaining Authority is based on the non-application of mind and without adhering to the statutory procedure. The grounds of detention appears to have been based on three offences namely first Crime No.257/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 452 , 342, 294, 506-B, 427 and 323 read with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . The date of offence is 8.4.2023. The second is Crime No.889/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 5 (A) and 9(A) of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and third offence is Crime No.1023/2023 for 4/25 of Arms Act read with Section 135 of the MAHARASHTRA POLICE ACT .

4. The Detaining Authority has also considered two in-camera statements. It is submitted that the Detaining Authority had not considered that in all the offences, which are pending before the Court, the petitioner has been released on bail and the bail orders though have been placed before the Authority are not considered while passing the detention order.

5. There is no proper verification of the statements. The stereotyped statements of two witnesses are considered. There is delay in passing the detention order from the date of last crime and no explanation is given by the Detaining Authority for passing the delayed order. Therefore, the detention order is illegal and deserves to be set aside.

6. Per Contra, learned A.P.P. submitted that well reasoned order has been passed while authorising the detention of the petitioner. Petitioner was involved in all other offences which are related to human body and the prevention of cruelty to animals. Even the preventive action was taken against him from time to time but he has not curtailed his activities. If we consider the facts of Crime No.1023/2023 it can be seen that the petitioner was found roaming on road holding a knife in his hand. This indicates that he wanted to create terror amongst people at large. Another offence is registered against the petitioner is Crime No.257/2023 under Sections 452 , 342, 294, 506-B, 427 and 323 read with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . Knife has been used. The petitioner has given threats to the informant and took out the gas cylinder and gave threats that he will ablaze all of them. Further in-camera statements would show that in both the offences threats were given by creating terror in the mind of people at large so that the petitioner can continue his illegal activities. The opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his representation. He was given hearing before the Advisory Board and the detention order has been confirmed by the Detaining Authority. No illegality has been committed and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Though three offences are considered by the Detaining Authority, the offence i.e. Crime No.889/2023 which is under the provisions of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act cannot be considered under the provisions of M.P.D.A. Act but two offences i.e Crime Nos.257/2023 and 1023/2023 can be considered under the M.P.D.A. Act as those are under the INDIAN PENAL CODE and would fall under the provisions of Chapters XVI and XVII of the I.P.C.

8. If we consider the offence i.e. Crime No.257/2023 in which the complainant is lady, the detenue along with other persons gave threats