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

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 03.04.2024 by respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Akola. The said detention order has been passed in exercise of powers under S.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, (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA Act"). It was further confirmed by the respondent No.1 on 31.05.2024.

3. The said detention order is based on two crimes, i.e., Crime No.193/2024 and Crime No.195/2024 of Old City Police Station, Akola and two in - camera statements. The former crime is registered under S.326, S.427, S.147, S.148, S.149, S.504, S.506 of the Indian Penal Code read with S.4 and S.25 of the Arms Act, dated 18.03.2024, while the latter is registered under S.452, S.427, S.504, S.506, S.34 of the Indian Penal Code read with S.4 and S.25 of the Arms Act, dated 19.03.2024.

4. The petitioner was also externed for a span of six months out of the limits of Akola City. It is pertinent to note that, out of the two bail applications, one in Crime No.193/2024 has been rejected by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.4), Akola vide order dated 20.03.2024.

5. Though number of grounds have been raised in this petition, Mr. Ali, learned Counsel has pressed on two certain grounds, which are as under :
(a) The detaining authority had not taken into consideration the bail order which was passed on 22.03.2024 in Crime No.195/2024.
(b) The in - camera statements were recorded on 26th and 27th March, 2024, verified by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, City Division, Akola on 30.03.2024, however the proposal for detention was sent on a prior date to respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Akola on 28.03.2024.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ali submitted that, the detention officer had filed the copy of bail application in Crime No.195/2024, wherein there is non - consideration of bail order. He further argued that, there could be a possibility that the in - camera statements would have been tampered, as on 30.03.2024 they were opened from the sealed envelope.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the respondents passed and approved the order of detention without verifying the status of the cases registered against the petitioner. As such the order which has been passed in mechanical manner deserves to be quashed and set - aside.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Doifode relied upon the affidavit - in - reply supporting the order of detention.
Mr. Doifode submitted that, the detaining authority had considered the bail application in Crime No.195/2023 and the bail application in Crime No.193/2024 was rejected. He further stated that, the action taken against the detenu under S.107, S.116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Externment order under S.56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, proved to be ineffective in preventing the petitioner from indulging in criminal and dangerous activities.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the detaining authority has been subjectively satisfied with the acts of the petitioner as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, there is no requirement of conviction or to sustain any punishment regarding the crime registered against the petitioner. That, all the said crimes registered against him and as per charge - sheet and case papers, there is sufficient material against the petitioner about his involvement and participation in the crimes taken into account for passing the order of detention.

10. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that, the residents in jurisdiction of Police Station, Akot, District - Akola, have mentioned