Preventive detention must be justified by recent criminal actions that pose a clear threat to public order; reliance on stale offences is insufficient without a direct nexus.

JUDGMENT :

RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.

1) By the present Petition, the Petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the Order of Detention dated 21^st October 2024, being No.Crime/PCB/DET/SAHAKARNAGAR/ SHAIKH/ 843/2024 (Detention Order) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, Pune i.e the Respondent No.1, under Section 3(2) 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 (“MPDA Act”). The Petitioner being detained under the said Detention Order, seeks a direction for being released and set at liberty.

2) By an Order dated 7^th April 2025, this Court has issued Rule in the petition. The Commissioner of Police, Pune City i.e Respondent No.1 has filed a detailed Affidavit-in reply dated 9^th May 2025 dealing with the various contentions/grounds and opposed the Petition. The Superintendent, Akola District Prison Class-1, Akola i.e Respondent No.3 has also filed an Affidavit–in–reply dated 10^th April 2025 opposing the Petition.

3) Heard Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner and Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, learned In-charge Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents. Perused the record, the Affidavits in reply, filed by the Respondents and considered the decisions as cited and relied upon by the Advocates appearing for the parties.

4) At the very outset, we may note that, though the Petitioner has raised various grounds in the Writ Petition for challenging the Detention Order dated 21^st October 2024 passed by the Respondent No.1, the learned Advocate for Petitioner has restricted his arguments to only two grounds, which are as under:-

i) The Detaining Authority, after stating that the two offences mentioned in paragraph Nos.5.1 and 5.2 and the two in camera statements in paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2 are only considered/relied upon for passing the Detention Order has proceeded to rely upon the past offences/preventive actions mentioned in paragraph Nos.3.1 and 3.2 respectively for arriving at the subjective satisfaction as required under law; and

ii) The two offences referred to in paragraph Nos. 5.1 and 5.2 and the two in camera statements referred to in paragraph Nos. 6.1 and 6.2, do not constitute an offence/act which is in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. At the most, the same would be a law and order issue, which can be effectively dealt with by invoking the existing laws.

5) A perusal of the record indicates that the Detention Order and Committal Order are both dated 21^st October 2024. The grounds of detention indicate that the Detention Order is based on two offences, as mentioned in paragraph Nos.5.1 and 5.2 and two in-camera statements summarized in paragraph Nos.6.1 and 6.2 (said offences and statements). The details of the said 2 offences are as under;

i) Offence registered with the Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune being Crime No.254/2024, under Sections 324(1), 342(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4(25) of Arms Act, and under Sections 34(1)/135, 142 of MPA and under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act.

ii) Offence registered with the Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune being Crime No.255/2024, under Section 4(25) of Arms Act and Sections 34(1)/135, 142 of MPA.

6) It is the case of the Respondents, that based on the said offences and statements the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that, the Petitioner is “Dangerous Person” as defined under Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act, and the Petitioner has unleashed a reign of terror and has become a perpetual danger to the society at large in the area of Sahakarnagar Police Station of Pune City.

7) The first ground urged by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is that, the Detaining Authority, after stating that the two offences menti