2024:BHC-AS:17274-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 116 OF 2024 Jitendra @ Tiger Umaji Pawar, Age 23 years, R/o. Rahul Nagar, Pawar Chawl, Tawdadi, Ambernath (E), Thane, Dist. Thane …..Petitioner Vs.

1) Commissioner of Police, Thane.

2) The State Of Maharashtra (Through Addl. Chief Secretary to Government of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

3) The Superintendent, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune. …..Respondents Adv. Ms. Jayshree Tripathi a/w. Adv. Anjali Raut for the Petitioner.

Mr. S.V. Gavand APP, for the Respondent-State.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 20th MARCH, 2024.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER- A.S. GADKARI, J.):-

1) Petitioner, a detenue under Section 3(2) of 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 (Maha. Act No.LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996) (Amendment-2009) (Amendment- 2015) (for short “MPDA Act” ), has impugned Order dated 30^th June, 2023 issued by the Respondent No.1, directing the detention of the Petitioner under the said provision, by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

2) Heard Ms. Tripathi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Gavand, learned APP for the Respondents. Perused entire record produced before us.

3) Record reveals that, along with the Order of detention the Order of Committal of Petitioner of even date was also issued by the Respondent No.1 and he was directed to be detained at Yerwada Central Prison, Pune. The Grounds of Detention dated 30^th June, 2023 along with the documents mentioned in the index/list of documents are also served upon the Petitioner at the time of serving the Order of detention upon the Petitioner.

4.1) The Petitioner has raised various grounds in the Petition however, while assailing the Order of detention, learned Advocate for the Petitioner restricted her challenge to only one ground. She submitted that, though in paragraph No.12 of grounds of detention the Detaining Authority while recording its satisfaction that, the Petitioner is a ‘Dangerous Person’ has referred to and relied upon a report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambernath Division and verification effected thereof, the said report is not mentioned in the list of documents and made as a part of the documents supplied to the Petitioner along with the Order of detention and therefore the right to make effective representation to the concerned Authority by the Petitioner, is impaired. She submitted that, due to non supply of the said vital document that is referred to and relied upon by the Detaining Authority while recording its subjective satisfaction, Petitioner’s constitutional right as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been materially affected and therefore the Order of detention needs to be quashed and set aside as the detention of the Petitioner cannot be supported in the eyes of law. She therefore prayed that, the Detention Order of the Petitioner may be quashed by allowing the Petition.

4.2) The relevant portion from paragraph No.12 of grounds of detention is reproduced herein below for the sake of brevity:-

“12. .…………………………………… Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Ambernath Division has verified the witnesses “A” & “B” and submitted a report to me. In the said report Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambernath Division, has mentioned that the facts given in the statements and apprehension entertained by the witnesses “A” & “B” are true and reasonable. After perusing the said report I am satisfied that the facts given in the statements and apprehension entertained by the witnesses “A” & “B” is true and reasonable.”

4.3) It is thus clear that, the Detaining Authority while reaching to its subjective satisfaction has not only referred to but has credi