PARAS RAMPRASAD SAHU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Y this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Paras s/o Ramprasad Sahu has challenged the detention order dated 12th August, 2002 passed by respondent No. 2, the District magistrate, Wardha detaining the petitioner under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996) for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 12th August, 2002 was served on the petitioner on 13th August, 2002.

(3.) AS could be seen from the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority took into consideration the fact of petitioner's involvement in activities of bootleggers and engaging himself in contravention of the Bombay Prohibition act, 1949 and in all, eight cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act have been registered against him at Police Station, Wardha city and the petitioner has been continuously engaging himself in commission of violent and desperate acts such as house trespass, hurt, mischief, robbery, criminal intimidation etc. on the point of dreadful weapons and his involvement in Police Station, wardha City in Crime No. 78 of 2002 for the offences under sections 452, 323, 427 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and at Police Station, Wardha in crime No. 82 of 2002 for the offences under section 394, 427 r/w. 34 of the indian Penal Code and also statement of two witnesses recorded in camera. The Detaining Authority was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner was acting in such a manner extremely prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In view of his tendency and/or inclinations reflecting the incidents referred to above, the Detaining Authority was satisfied that the petitioner was likely to indulge in activities extremely prejudicial to maintenance of public order and that is how, the Detaining Authority passed the detention order and in pursuance of that order, the petitioner came to be detained.