MRUDULA MAHENDRA MASTER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is mother of detenu Jayesh @ Jayu Mahendra Master, is challenging the detention order dated 12-9-2001 passed by the respondent No. 2-The Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai (Shri M. N. Singh) under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amended in 1996 ).

(2.) THE detention order alongwith the grounds of detention also dated 12-9-2001 was served on the detenu on 13-9-2001. Copy of the detention order is annexed to the petition as Annexure: P-1.

(3.) THE prejudicial activities of detenu, on which the impugned detention order is founded are stipulated in grounds of detention. They are comprised of one C. R. namely C. R. No. 184/2001 detailed as ground No. 4 (a) (v) and C. R. No. 189/2001 detailed as ground 4 (b) (ii ). C. R. No. 184/2001 referred in ground 4 (a) (v) was registered on a complaint of Shri Anil Dnyanu Surve under sections 324, 34 of I. P. C. at V. P. Road, Police Station against detenu and his associates and subsequently section 387 I. P. C. was added in this case. The C. R. referred in 4 (b) (vi) in C. R. No. 189/2001 was registered on the complaint of Shri Rajendra Gawali against detenu and his associates, under sections 399, 402 I. P. C. read with section 37 (1) (a)-22-51 r/w 3. 25 Arms Act. The Detaining Authority found that detenu was a violent type of dangerous person who has taken to the life of crime for the sake of easy money. He was engaged in terrorizing criminal activities in the localities of Kumbharwada, P. B. Marg and areas adjoining thereto within the jurisdiction of V. P. Road, Police Station in Brihan Mumbai. He had unleashed a reign of terror in the above localities and areas and had thereby became a perpetual danger to the life and property of the people residing and carrying out their daily avocations in the said localities and areas. The Detaining Authority having had subjective satisfaction, on the basis of the material on record, that the detenu was likely to revert to similar criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and therefore, it was necessary to detain him and has thus issued the impugned order of detention.