Illegal detention orders must comply with strict legal standards regarding public order.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Harshawardhan Suryawanshi for the petitioner and learned APP Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar 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 2810.2024 bearing No.DC / DESK - 9C1/1336/2024 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the approval order dated 07.11.2024 and the confirmation order dated 18.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1, by invoking the powers of this Court under Art.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, four offences were considered i.e. (i) Crime No.116 of 2024 registered with Belwandi Police Station, District Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under S.323, S.504, S.506 of Indian Penal Code , under S.3(2)(v - a), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Atrocities Act") (ii) Crime No.191 of 2024 registered with Belwandi Police Station, District Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under S.324, S.323, S.504, S.506 of Indian Penal Code , (iii) Crime No.228 of 2024 registered with Belwandi Police Station, District Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under S.353, S.332, S.324, S.427, S.504, S.506 read with S.34 of Indian Penal Code and (iv) Crime No.239 of 2024 registered with Belwandi Police Station, District Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under S.119(1), S.115(2), S.352, S.351(2)(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita . Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in all four offences were considered for passing the detention order, however, none of the offences were against the public order. Further, as regards the confidential statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B' are concerned, it cannot be said that it would have created public order situation. The material before the detaining authority was not sufficient to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. Further, it appears that even the other criminal proceedings against the petitioner were also considered while branding him as dangerous person, which is against the law. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal.

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. Siddharam Salimath, District Magistrate, Ahilyanagar and submits that taking into consideration the criminal activities carried out against different persons by the petitioner, it can be seen that his criminal activity graph was mounting and it was affecting the public at large. In fact, he was externed for three months by order dated 11.02.2022 from District Ahilyanagar, still his activities were not curtailed and, therefore, in ord