Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
VINAY JOSHI, VRUSHALI V.JOSHI
Mohammad Mubsheer Shaikh alias Chand, S/o. Shaikh Shabbir – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai – Respondent
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, 19
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,....
Detention orders must provide compelling reasons when the detenu is already in custody, and all relevant materials must be considered by the detaining authority.
Detention orders under the MPDA Act require proof of public order disruption, and delays in processing such orders can invalidate them due to lack of subjective satisfaction.
Preventive detention requires the detaining authority to base its decision on relevant material and demonstrate subjective satisfaction, which was lacking in this case.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of public order disturbance; failure to meet this standard renders the detention order illegal.
Preventive detention orders must be based on sufficient material demonstrating a threat to public order, and arbitrary or capricious exercise of power renders such orders illegal.
Preventive detention under the M.P.D.A. Act is justified when the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction is based on credible evidence of serious offences affecting public order.
The detention order must be based on sufficient and justifiable evidence to prevent acts prejudicial to public order.
The detention order must be based on material that constitutes a breach of public order, and the authority must record its subjective satisfaction on the basis of consideration of material before it.
Criminal activities - Detention order - Both predicate offences, in our view, do not shed light on the activities, which had propensity to cause or calculated to cause harm, danger or alarm or a feel....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
