KAMLESH RAMPALAT KASHYAP Vs. M N SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu Kamlesh Rampalal Kashyap has impugned the order dated 2-8-2001 passed by the first respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, detaining him under sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996) (hereinafter referred to as the M. P. D. A. Act ). The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 2-8-2001 was served on the detenu on 4-8-2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures-A and B respectively to this writ petition.

(2.) A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure-B) would show that the impugned order is founded on two C. Rs. namely C. R. No. 15 of 2001 under Ss. 393, 452, 511, 34, IPC r/w 37 (a) (i) of the Mumbai Police Act registered on the basis of complaint dated 7-1-2001 lodged by Smt. Mary Kutty Thomas at Khar Police Station and C. R. No. 70 of 2001 under Ss. 394, 397, 452, 511, 34, IPC r/w Ss. 3, 25 of the Arms Act and 37 (1) (a) of the Mumbai Police Act registered on the basis of complaint dated 23-2-2001 lodged by Smt. Leena Rustam Dalal at Cuffe Parade Police Station and in-camera statements of two witnesses namely A and B which were recorded on 25-6-2001 and 26-6-2001 respectively. 2-A. In short, the recitals in the said C. Rs. and in-camera statements are as under :-We begin with C. R. No. 15 of 2001 of Khar Police Station. A perusal of paras 4 (a), 4 (a) (i) and 4 (a) (ii) of the grounds of detention would show as under :-The informant Smt. Mary Kutty Thomas is a resident of C. G. S. Quarters, Sector 3, Building No. 206, R. No. 2787, 1st floor, Antop Hill, Sion, Bombay. She is a nurse by profession and is working with Shri Kanhailal Totaram Sindhwani residing at Mount Prospect, 4th floor, Flat No. 80, 20 Union Park, Khar (W) Mumbai. She looks after Smt. Gopi Kanhailal Sindhwani wife of the aforesaid Kanhailal. On 7-1-2001 at about 8. 45 a. m. the door bell rang and the maid-servant Smt. Anandibai opened the door. The informant Smt. Thomas saw the detenu, his unknown associate and his associate named Kali Bandjan Govindjan. Kali Govindjan asked the maid-servant of Kanhailal Sindhwani whether she wanted a cook whereupon the latter replied as to who had sent him. At that juncture, the detenu, Kali Govindjan and his associates armed with choppers entered the flat. Kali on the point of chopper dragged Smt. Anandibai in the bed room and threatened the two persons who were present there on the point of chopper and told them to quietly sit down. Thereafter, another associate of the detenu entered inside the room and a third associate of the detenu dragged the informant to the bed room where the maid-servant had been confined. However, the informant freed herself; broke open the glass of the bathroom window; and shouted for help. On hearing her shouts, neighbours collected and thereafter the detenu and others ran away. The details pertaining to C. R. No. 70 of 2001 which are contained in para 4 (b), 4 (b) (i) and 4 (b) (ii) in short are as under :-The informant Smt. Leena Rustam Dalal resides at Flat No. 9, Green Field Building, 4th floor, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai along with her husband Rustam Dalal, her son Rehan, aged 13 years, and her daughter Miss Natasha. Her husband had left for London on 7-1-2001. On 23-2-2001, at 8 a. m. the informant dropped her daughter Natasha to school. Her son Rehan also left for school. At about 8-45 a. m. the informant returned home. At 11-30 a. m. while the informant was operating computer in the guest room, the doorbell rang and consequently she opened the door. She noticed the detenu and his associates Kali Govindjan and Ramdhan Bharti standing in front of the door. Kali told the informant that he wanted to see her maid-servant Sunita Chilbe. The informant called her and closed the door and went in the guest room. Smt. Sunita Chilbe partly opened the door and made enquiry whereupon the detenu's associate Kali told her that Raju had sent him for work. On that, Sunita told Kali that she did not know any Raju and so saying when she was about to close the door, the detenu and his aforesaid associates entered the flat. The detenu pushed Sunita down. Sunita shouted loudly whereupon the informant rushed to the door. The detenu caught hold of the T-shirt of the informant and pointed a revolver towards her. He shouted that they had come to commit robbery and dragged her in the dining room and threatened her not to raise cries. His associate Kali pulled down Sunita; sat on her; pressed her neck; and assaulted her with a knife in the region of her right palm. The detenu's associate, who was holding a country-made revolver, caught the hand of Sunita. When the informant was about to tell something to Sunita, the door bell again rang. The detenu took the informant at the main door and before opening it threatened her to tell the person who had rung the bell that nothing was wrong inside the flat and he should go. The informant opened the door and saw her driver Shri More along with Shri Rajesh Chandrani and 2/3 persons standing there. The informant came out; narrated the said facts to Shri More; and informed the police. Thereafter, the detenu and his associates ran away. 2-B. We now come to the averments contained in the in-camera statements of witnesses A and B, contained in paras 4 (c) (i) and 4 (c) (ii) respectively of the grounds of detention. In short, witness A stated as under :-He knew the detenu and his associate Kali as notorious goondas who extort hafta money from the shopkeepers, traders and businessmen in the areas of Nariman point and Churchgate, on the point of knife and revolver. One day, in the last week of January 2001 at about 1-30 p. m. while he was present at the place of his business, the detenu and his associate kali and his two other associates came. Kali whipped out a revolver; put it on his chest, and told him to hand over whatever he had earned. When he refused to pay, the detenu whipped out a knife and pointed it at his servant. At that time, the two associates of the detenu were keeping a watch. The detenu's associate Kali forcibly removed Rs. 2400/- from the left pocket of his pant. On account of fear, customers and servants of the witness ran away helter skelter. Witness B in his statement, in short, stated as under :-He knew the detenu and his associate Kali as notorious goondas who on the point of deadly weapons used to collect hafta money from the shopkeepers, hawkers and businessmen from Nariman point, Churchgate areas. One day in the second week of February 2001 at about 9 p. m. while he was about to close the business, the detenu, his associate Kali and his two unknown associates came. The detenu whipped out a knife; put it on his neck; abused him; and asked him to take out whatever money he had. The detenu's associate threatened his servant not to move. His associate Kali forcibly removed Rs. 3400 from the cash box of the witness.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition Mr. U. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds, numbered as ground Nos. 8 (A) to 8 (E) but, he has pressed before us a solitary ground namely that pleaded as ground No. 8 (C ). In short, the said ground reads thus :-Since the detenu was already in judicial custody in C. R. No. 70 of 2001 having been arrested on 23-2-2001 and had not applied for bail for more than last five months, there was no cogent material for the detaining authority to conclude that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in the near future and consequently, the impugned detention order was unwarranted in law.