ALLAUDDIN @ NIGRO @ BABU CHAND SAYYED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HAVING HIS OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is detained pursuant to detention Order No.13/PCB/BP/ZoneVI/2011 dated 13th December, 2011 passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drugoffenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (For short "Act of 1981"). THE said order is passed by the Commissioner of Police, Briham Mumbai. THE said order is approved on 20 th December, 2011 by the State Government.

(2.) THE grounds of detention have been served upon the petitioner by communication dated 13th December, 2012 itself. On perusal of the grounds of detention, it is noticed that the order of detention is passed on the basis of following material : (i) Alleged involvement of the appellant in C.R. No.115 of 2011 under Section 324 and 504 of Indian Penal Code registered at Deonar Police station in regard to incident dated 17th July, 2011, wherein it is alleged that one Mr. Mithun Sathe was assaulted by the petitioner causing him injuries and that said Sathe had taken treatment at Shatabdi Hospital. (ii) C.R. No.267 of 2011 of Chembur Police Station under Section 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC in regard to the incident alleged to have taken place on 30th July, 2011 wherein Rajaram P. Babar was assaulted by the petitioner with iron rod and that said Rajaram was treated at Dhanvantari Hospital at Chembur. (iii) C.R. No.145 of 2011 of Deonar Police Station under Section 392, 323 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. being the incident alleged to have taken place on 28th August, 2011, wherein the petitioner and his associates are alleged to have robbed Mohd. Shakil Shafiq Shah of his mobile and a sum of Rs.700/. (iv) Incamera statement rendered by witness "A" on 22 nd October, 2011 in regard to an incident, which have taken place in the third week of August, 2011. (v) Incamera statement rendered by witness "B" on 26 th October, 2011 in regard to an incident, which have taken place in second week of July 2011. (vi) It is also noticed that action under Section 37(1)(a) r/w Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act was initiated against the petitioner on two counts. In the grounds of detention, a general reference is made about the preventive action taken against the petitioner under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code on three occasions.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mrs. Kantharia appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that Mr. Sathe, as well as Mr. Babar, the victims had suffered the injuries was apparent on the basis of the text of the FIR in as much as in the FIR itself the information was disclosed that Mr. Mithun Sathe had treatment for injuries suffered by him in Shatabdi Hospital. In so far as injuries suffered by Mr. Rajaram P. Babar, the said information was available on the basis of the FIR, which discloses that treatment was received by Mr. Babar from Dhanvantari Hospital. LEARNED advocate Mrs. Kantharia submitted that the Medical Certificates concerning these two victims were not relied upon and that is how those documents were not supplied and no fault, therefore, can be found for not supplying the said Medical Certificates to the petitioner. LEARNED advocate Mrs. Kantharia pointed out that the additional affidavitinreply filed by Dr. Satyapal Singh deals with this aspect of the matter and in the said affidavit in paragraph 9, the above position is clarified.