skn 1 905-WP-1457.2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1457 OF 2022

Shri Raj Gulab Shaikh,

Age-29 years, R/o. Indiranagar,

Handewadi Road, Hadapsar, Pune.

…

Petitioner.

V/s.

1.

The Commissioner of Police,

Pune City.

2. The State of Maharashtra (Through

Addl. Chief Secretary to Government of

Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Home

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

3. The Superintendent,

Aurangabad Central Prison, Aurangabad.

…

Respondents.

Ms.Jayashree Tripathi with Mr.U.N.Tripathi

for the Petitioner.

Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for the Respondent- State.

SANJAY

KASHINATH

NANOSKAR

Digitally

signed by

SANJAY

KASHINATH

NANOSKAR

Date:

2022.08.19

12:18:24

+0530

skn 2 905-WP-1457.2022.doc

CORAM:

NITIN JAMDAR AND

N.R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE :

12 August 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

(Per Nitin Jamdar, J.)

By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order

of detention dated 28 February 2022 passed by Respondent No.1-

Commissioner of Police, Pune City. Since pursuant to the order of

detention, the Petitioner is taken in custody; the Petitioner is praying

to be set forthwith at liberty. The impugned detention order is

passed under section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of

Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers, Drugoffenders,

Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981.

2.

Along with the order of detention dated 28 February

2022, the committal order and grounds of detention of the same

date were served upon the Petitioner. In the grounds of detention,

the Detaining Authority referred to the criminal history of the

Petitioner of five offences ranging from August 2017 to June 2021.

The Detaining Authority also referred to the preventive actions

taken on 13 April 2018 and 20 February 2020, whereby the

Petitioner had executed a bond for good behaviour. The Detaining

Authority stated that despite the preventive action, it had no

deterrent effect on the Petitioner and the Petitioner committed two

more offences for which crimes were registered on 30 October 2021

skn 3 905-WP-1457.2022.doc

and 25 October 2020. The statements of witnesses ‘A’ and 'B' were

recorded in-camera. Considering this material on record, the

Detaining Authority formed a subjective satisfaction that the

Petitioner is a slumlord as defined under section 2(f) of the Act of

1981 and his criminal activities are prejudicial to the public order

and that the Petitioner cannot be dealt with under the ordinary law

of land and action of preventive detention is necessary. Accordingly,

the Detaining Authority passed the impugned order of detention.

The Petitioner made a representation on 21 March 2022 which was

rejected on 20 April 2022. Thereafter, the Petitioner is before us by

the present petition.

3.

We have heard Ms.Tripathi, learned counsel for the

Petitioner and Ms.Mhatre, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

the Respondents.

4.

The Petitioner has urged that there is undue delay in

deciding the representation made by the Petitioner, and the delay has

not been explained by the Respondents. According to the Petitioner,

this situation violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India,

which mandates that the detune's representation should be decided

as expeditiously as possible. The Petitioner has pointed out that two

periods have not been explained by the Respondent- Authorities.

The first is between 13 April 2022 and 19 April 2022, and the

second is between 31 March 2022 and 13 April 2022. Replies to

the petition have been filed on behalf of the State by the Deputy

skn 4 905-WP-1457.2022.doc

Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, by Respondent No.1-